NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Ernest M. Tipton, Referee
BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY AND STEAMSHIP CLERKS, FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS AND STATION EMPLOYES
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: (a) Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood of Railway Clerks that Mediation Agreement Case No. A-225, signed in Cleveland, Ohio, May 20, 1936, has been violated by the failure and refusal of the Carriers to make effective the provisions of` Section 6 of said agreement; and,
(b) That C. & O. employes be placed in the joint operation at Muncie, Indiana, in accordance with the provisions of Section 6 of the Mediation Agreement, and that all employes who have suffered wage loss by reason of the failure and refusal of the Carrier to apply the provisions of the agreement be compensated for such wage loss.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Prior to May 1, 1933, the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company and the New York, Chicago and St. Louis Railroad Company (which will hereinafter be referred to as the Nickel Plate) maintained separate freight house facilities, each road having its own freight office, warehouse, and yard forces, the employes on the Nickel Plate being represented by the Brotherhood of Railway Clerks and the employes on the Chesapeake and Ohio being represented by the Chesapeake and Ohio Clerks' Association.
Effective May 1, 1933, the work previously performed in the C. & O operation was transferred to and placed in the Nickel Plate operation and under the jurisdiction of the Nickel Plate Railroad by four-party agreement between the two respective Managements and representatives of the two respective Organizations.
The C. & 0. work was placed under the Nickel Plate Agreement with the Brotherhood of Railway Clerks and all vacancies thereafter continued to be filled from Nickel Plate seniority rosters.
Effective May 20, 1936, a Mediation Agreement was reached at Cleveland, Ohio covering Chicago, Illinois, Peru and Muncie, Indiana consolidations, reading as follows;
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers,
Express and Station Employes
the view that it was for the Mediation Board to decide which interpretation is correct.
OPINION OF BOARD: Only the question of the jurisdiction of this Board is here presented.
Jurisdiction of the National Mediation Board is defined in Section 5 of the Railway Labor Act. The pertinent part of that section is as follows:
Obviously, under this section there must be a disagreement over the meaning or application of a mediation agreement before the National Mediation Board would have jurisdiction. Since the Carrier Members admit there is no such disagreement between the petitioner and respondent as to the meaning of the mediation agreement, that Board would have no jurisdiction and evidently that Board came to the same conclusion when in Interpretation 12 to Case No. A-225 it said, "That the Mediation Agreement in question has in reality now been superseded by having been made a part of the basic agreement * * * (the claim) may be submitted to the National Railroad Adjustment Board for further handling in accordance with Section 3 of the Railway Labor Act."
Under Section 3 (i) of the Railway Labor Act this Board has jurisdiction of "* * * disputes between an employe or group of employes and a carrier growing out of the interpretation or application of agreements concerning rates of pay, rules, or working conditions, * * *."
A mere reading of the "Statement of Claim" will show that it comes within the provision of Section 3 (ij. To illustrate, take Section (b) of the claim wherein it says, "And all employes who have suffered wage loss by reason of the failure and refusal of the carrier to apply the provisions of the agreement be compensated for such wage loss." The petitioners may or may not be able to substantiate their claim when it is presented on the merits. This Board holds that it has jurisdiction of the claim.
FINDINGS: That the carrier and the employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934; and