BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY AND STEAMSHIP CLERKS,
FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS & STATION EMPLOYES
GULF COAST LINES; INTERNATIONAL-GREAT NORTHERN
RAILROAD CO.; THE ST. LOUIS, BROWNSVILLE & MEXICO
RAILWAY CO.; THE BEAUMONT, SOUR LAKE & WESTERN
RAILWAY CO.; SAN ANTONIO, UVALDE & GULF RAILROAD
CO.; THE ORANGE & NORTHWESTERN RAILROAD CO.;
IBERIA, ST. MARY & EASTERN RAILROAD CO.; SAN BENITO
8c RIO GRANDE VALLEY RAILWAY CO.; NEW ORLEANS,
TEXAS & MEXICO RAILWAY CO.; NEW IBERIA & NORTHERN
RAILROAD CO.; SAN ANTONIO SOUTHERN RAILWAY CO.;
HOUSTON & BRAZOS VALLEY RAILWAY CO.; HOUSTON
NORTH SHORE RAILWAY CO.; ASHERTON & GULF RAIL:
WAY CO.; RIO GRANDE CITY RAILWAY CO.; ASPHALT BELT
RAILWAY CO.; SUGARLAND RAILWAY CO.
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
(a) The Carrier violated the Clerks' Agreement at San Antonio, Texas, beginning September 24, 1945, when it abolished position of Utility Clerk No. 4, rate $9.85 per day, and assigned the duties thereof to Utility Clerks Nos. 1, 2 and 3, with rates of $8.25 per day. Also,
(b) Claim that the Carrier be required to increase the rates of Utility Clerks Nos. 1, 2 and 3 from $8.25 per day to $9.85 per day, effective September 25, 1945, plus subsequent wage increase. And,
(c) Claim that all employes involved in or affected by the Agreement violation be compensated for all losses sustained.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: On October 18, 1944, Carrier established and bulletined position of Utility Clerk No. 4 in the San Antonio Yard Office. The bulletin described the duties as-
tion created to do the work performed by the discontinued position; together with the "Opinion" and "Findings" of the Board as expressed in Awards No. 974, 2352, and 2353, it is clearly evident that the contention and claim of the Employes in the case under consideration is without basis.
Therefore, it is the position of the Carrier that the contention of the Employes be dismissed and the accompanying claim accordingly denied.
OPINION OF BOARD: Under date of October 18, 1944, the Carrier bulletined a temporary position of "Utility Clerk No. 4-Yard" at San Antonio. The position carried an assignment of 365 days at a pay rate of $8.26 per day. In fixing the rate of pay the Carrier complied with the provisions of Rule 51 of the controlling Agreement, which provides:
For, at the time, there were three positions of Utility Clerk at San Antonio, each of which carried a pay rate of $8.26 per day. No. 1 was a 365 day position. No. 2 and No. 3 were 306 day positions.
On November 29, 1944 the lately created position (No. 4) was changed by the Carrier from a 365-day position to a 306-day position. This change was made pursuant to an agreement entered into by the Organization and the Carrier as follows:
By bulletin, effective September 24, 1945, Position No. 4 was abolished and the work, appertaining to it, was assigned to positions 1, 2 and 3. The claim of the Organization is that the rate of pay of positions 1, 2 and 3 be increased from $8.26 per day to $9.85 per day. The claim is based on Rules 50 and 52 of the current Agreement which, so far as pertinent, provide:
These rules have relevance only on the assumption that the letter of October 13, 1940 was designed to affect the wage structure set up by the controlling Agreement. Such assumption is warranted neither by the terms nor the intent of the letter Agreement. It, of course, affects the daily rate of pay of the occupants of positions reduced from 365 to 306 days but that is only incidental to its main objective: the reduction of 365 day positions, unnecessary to continuing operation, to 306 day positions and, at the same time, protect the occupants of such positions in their annual earnings. To accord any meaning to the Agreement beyond this would extend its terms and distort its purpose.
The Organization has cited Awards Nos. 1614, 1627, 1846, 2008, 2239, 2781 in support of the claim now presented. Those Awards involve claims made by or on behalf of occupants of positions, unnecessary to continuous operation, which had been, or should have been, reduced from 365 day to 306 day positions. The decisions go no further than to hold that the occupant shall receive what he would have received had the position not been reduced from 365 to 306 days. Certainly they are not authority for holding that the Agreement was- in any way designed to disturb the rates of pay of other positions. We do not think that Rules 50 (a) and 52 (a) have any application to the issue presented by this record.
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