THE DETROIT AND TOLEDO SHORE LINE
RAILROAD COMPANY
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Prior to November 6, 1936, certain work as yardmaster at Dearoad, Michigan, had been performed by a regularly employed yardmaster, and the Train Dispatchers at that point were not, in addition to being ' . . primarily responsible for the movement of trains by train orders, or otherwise; to supervise forces employed in handling train orders; to keep necessary records incident thereto and to perform related work" (quotation from page 268, "Occupational Classification") required to "supervise the work of employes engaged in breaking up, making up and handling trains and general yard switching . . ." (quotation from page 249, "Occupational Classification").
Under date of November 6, 1936, the Carrier's then Trainmaster J. E. Weeks addressed a notice to Chief Train Dispatcher F. M. Guilford, reading as follows:
In compliance with these quoted instructions, the train dispatchers performed work of train dispatcher as well as of yardmaster.
The train dispatchers complained to the Carrier against being required to perform work in two separate and distinct classifications. Complaint was finally made in writing on January 19, 1944, as a result of which Superintendent E. O. Dunn addressed a letter dated January 22, 1944, to the then Chief Train Dispatcher, H. Neff, reading as follows:
OPINION OF BOARD: In the Scope Rule of the Agreement it is provided that "the rules of this agreement shall govern the rates of pay and working conditions of any person who performs service as train dispatcher as that term is defined by the Interstate Commerce Commission."
While it is stated in the preface of the Interstate Commerce Commission Classification that it is not to be construed as setting up jurisdictional lines for occupation, there is nothing to prevent the parties from making a part of the Scope Rule of the Contract the definition and classification of the Commission. The parties have done just that in this case.
A Train Dispatcher is described in the Interstate Commerce Commission Classification as follows:
Have the Claimants proven in this case that the Dispatchers were required to do Yardmaster's work in violation of the Agreement as the work is thus described in the above classification? The proof is general and indefinite. While affidavits were submitted by some Dispatchers indicating that Yardmaster's work was done by the Dispatchers, we do not believe the proof is definite enough to sustain claim upon this record.
Complaint was made by employes in writing on January 19, 1944, following which Carrier's Superintendent addressed the following letter dated January 22, 1944, to the Chief Train Dispatcher at Dearoad:
We believe the claims in any event must be limited to that date. On the record before us we do not feel an award would be justified covering any period prior thereto.
We conclude that from January 19, 1944, Carrier has violated the Agreement in requiring Dispatchers to do Yardmaster's work and that claims 3136-7 266
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving the parties to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon, and upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds;
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;
That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and
That since January 19, 1944, Carrier has violated the Agreement in requiring Dispatchers to do Yardmaster's work.
That claims be sent back to property to adjust and settle the exact amount of claims, from January 19, 1944, to date, for G. B. Bond, C. C. Hargis, H. Neff and G. A. Peck.
NAME OF ORGANIZATION: American Train Dispatchers
Association
NAME OF CARRIER: The Detroit and Toledo Shore Line
Railroad Company
Upon application of the representatives of the employes involved in the above award, that this Division interpret the same in the light of the dispute between the parties as to its meaning and application, as provided for in Section 3, First (m), of the Railway Labor Act, approved June 21, 1934, the following interpretation is made:
In this award the Board found that from January 19 1944, Carrier violated the Agreement in requiring Dispatchers to do Yardmaster's work and that claims should be sent back to the property to adjust and settle the amount of the claims from that date. In sending the claims back to the property it was merely intended that a computation be made of the number of days pay at Yardmaster rate that was due each Claimant according to the number of days such service was performed since January 19, 1944.'
In effect what Carrier now seeks is a rehearing on the merits and the setting aside of the award because of lack of proof by Claimants. It was not intended by the award that there should be further proof of violations of the Agreement, but merely that a computation should be made to determine how much was due each Claimant.
Referee Luther W. Youngdahl, who sat with the Division as a Member when Award No. 3136 was adopted, also participated with the Division in making this Interpretation.