THE NEW YORK CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY
(Line West of Buffalo)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of The Order of Railroad Telegraphers on the New York Central Railroad Company, List West of Buffalo, that:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: There is in evidence an agreement between the parties bearing effective date of July 1, 1946, as to rules of working conditions, copy of which is on file with the Board and by reference is made a part of his Statement of Facts.
Under the rules of the current agreement between the Carrier and the Organization seniority districts with clearly defined limits are set up, and, the following seniority districts are clearly provided for:
The 3rd trick clerk-telegrapher position has subsequently been filled from Seniority District No. 2 and appears as the last position listed under Seniority District No. 2 on Page 29 of the Wage Scale of the July 1, 1946 Agreement, and the remaining positions of clerk-telegrapher in the Erie Dispatchers' office are listed under Seniority District No. 1 and appear on Page 26 of the Wage Scale.
Attention is also directed to reference in the June 16, 1939 letter from General Chairman Beattie-Carrier's Exhibit No. 1-to a similar arrangement in the dispatchers' office at Toledo, whereby in October, 1937 a similar agreement signed jointly by management and the then general chairman, P. K. Pickard, provided that the 3rd trick clerk-telegrapher position in the dispatchers' office at Toledo be bulletined and assigned to telegraphers on Toledo Division East, Seniority District No. 4, the 1st and 2nd trick clerk-telegrapher positions in the same office to remain in Seniority District No. 5. The 3rd trick clerk-telegrapher in the Toledo dispatchers' office is listed as the first position under Seniority District No. 4 Page 31, and the 1st and 2nd trick positions in that office listed on Page 34, under Seniority District No. 5, current agreement.
In the above-mentioned instances there was no suggestion that additional positions should be established in the dispatchers' office at Erie or at Toledo merely because telegraphers on two seniority rosters contended they had equity rights to such positions.
There is, therefore, ample precedent to dispose of the instant dispute. A similarly negotiated agreement covering an agreed-upon equitable division of work in "OD" Tower between telegraphers in Seniority Districts No. 1 and 2 would be no innovation with the Telegraphers in either district and certainly would not be unreasonable in view of the fact that the carrier is satisfied to continue existing working conditions in "OD" Tower with District No. 2 forces, but the employes insist on a change in the situation which is not, in the carrier's opinion, justified by the facts.
OPINION OF BOARD: The facts giving rise to this dispute are stantially as follows: Prior to July 29, 1932, Carrier maintained a tov 4210-15 129
"W" crossover which controlled main line movements at the west end of Ashtabula yard as well as main track crossover switches and turnouts for train movements into and out of the west end of the West Yard. "W" tower was staffed by three telegraphers-levermen holding seniority rights in Seniority District No. 1. Effective July 28, 1932, the interlocking plant at "W" tower was permanently discontinued and crossovers and switches operated therefrom were changed to hand operation, some signals were taken out of service and the two westward home signals on Tracks I and 3 and two eastward home signals on Tracks 2 and 4 were changed to automatic. From July 28, 1932 to May 6, 1947, the crossovers and switches were operated by hand by yardmen and trainmen as required for movement of their trains in and out of the west end of the Ashtabula West Yard. Effective 8:00 A. M., May 6, 1947, the automatic signals were changed to interlocking and thereafter the crossovers, switches and signals were operated by remote control handled by the Tower Director on each trick in "OD" Tower, which tower directors hold seniority rights in Seniority District 2.
The employes and the Carrier are not in accord with respect to the amount of through traffic and diverging traffic at "W" crossover. The Carrier's defense is substantially that the operation of the remote control of the crossover to lead switches at "W" require little of the time of the director of "OD" tower and that the agreement does not require the Carrier to create additional positions where they are not needed.
In May of 1947 when the Carrier changed the operation of the crossovers and lead switches at "W" from hand operation to operation by remote control panel from OD, it is apparent that such work was removed from train and yardmen and then became telegraphers' work. The factor of the operation of the crossovers and lead switches by train and yardmen for fifteen years without objection by the Order, in our opinion, does not affect this conclusion. The Order may well have been willing o concede that on hand operation such work was not covered by the scope rule of their Agreement, but when mechanically operated, we believe that it is clear that the work of handling the crossovers and lead switches at "W" was within the scope rule of the Telegraphers' Agreement, and hence, should have been assigned to employes in the Seniority District in which it belonged. If such work were in Seniority District No. 1 when "W" tower was in operation and the Seniority District were not changed in the meantime, when it again became Telegraphers' work in May of 1947, it should have been allocated to Seniority District No. 1 employes, unless by negotiation another allocation were agreed upon. This principle is well-established under previous awards of this Board. The factor of the amount of work involved does not affect the operation of the principle. See Award No. 1611. In view of what we have said-above, the claim of the employes must be sustained. If, as the Carrier contends, the amount of work involved is extremely small, it should have requested a change in the Agreement as provided for in Article 35 thereof.
Although we appreciate the binding effect of our award, we cannot conclude this opinion without suggesting to the parties, as we did in Award 3659 that negotiation in good faith is the proper method for arriving at the solution of problems such as that presented in this case. While the arrangement made by the Carrier was doubtlessly motivated by proper considerations of economy and operating procedures, its execution infringed upon the terms of the Agreement with its employes and the method of negotiation rather than of ex parte action, should have been followed. See Award 388.
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; 4210-16 130