NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN
THE TEXAS & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of unassigned dining car stewards for time earned-by dining car crew or crews with waiter or waiters in charge when displaced effective March 13, 1948, Train 8 and 7 between Fort Worth and Texarkana until dining car stewards are restored to such runs, and similar and/or identical claims of dining car stewards on other runs where waiters in charge have displaced the dining car stewards. (Carrier's file T-23039.)
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: On March 11, 1948 Bulletin 807 was issued by Superintendent of Dining Car Service Findley, such bulletin reading as follows:
Prior to March 13, 1948 dining car service in charge of dining car stewards was operated on Trains 8 and 7, Fort Worth to Texarkana and return. On the effective date of the bulletin, March 13, 1948, the services of dining car steward was discontinued and the dining cars assigned on these runs were changed to so-called diner-lounge cars by the rearrangement of the interior of the car or cars and these cars now have a seating capacity of eighteen (18) passengers and that number can be waited on at one time and as the passengers retire after having been served additional passengers take their place and receive the service desired, but the crew in charge of a waiter continued to give the patrons the same service as had been given heretofore; in other words, meals are served to the public on these so-called diner-lounge cars the same as they had been prior to the effective date of Bulletin 807, hereinabove quoted.
POSITION OF EMPLOYES: Claim based on Rule 7, Paragraphs (a), (c) and (e), and Rule 12 of the Agreement governing dining car stewards, reading:
Seventh: The organization should not be heard to request from the National Railroad Adjustment Board an award which would have the effect of granting the craft a new rule not theretofore a part of the labor agreement.
Eighth: Diner-lounges on the Texas and Pacific have always been manned by waiters-in-charge-never by stewards.
Ninth: The work of supervising diner-lounges and similar combination equipment properly belongs to waiters-in-charge, and is covered by a labor agreement with the Dining Car Employes' Union.
Tenth: To replace waiters-in-charge with stewards on diner-lounges would be a violation of pre-existing contractual rights of waiters-in-charge under the agreement with the Dining Car Employes' Union.
Eleventh: The claim is so vague and indefinite as to be invalid and unenforceable, and therefore should not be entertained by the Board.
Wherefore, the carrier earnestly requests that the claim of the organization and employes herein be denied.
OPINION OF BOARD: Prior to March 13, 1948 dining car service in charge of stewards was operated on Trains 7 and 8, Fort Worth to Texarkana and return. By bulletin March 13, 1948 Carrier advised that effective March 13, 1948 diner-lounge would operate on Trains 7 and 8, Fort Worth to Texarkana and return with following crew: 1st Cook, 2nd Cook, 1 Waiterin-charge and 1 Pantryman. Employes claim that the work performed by waiter-in-charge is work properly devolving upon dining car stewards and that similar or identical work is being performed by dining car stewards assigned to other trains and that the assignment of this work to waiters-incharge is in violation of their schedule.
It appears that the first Agreement between Carrier and the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen representing Dining Car Stewards and/or Conductors was entered into effective May 16, 1936. It further appears that the parties entered into a Memorandum Agreement which is tantamount to a joint interpretation of the May 16, 1936 Agreement in which it was stated:
Carrier asserts that due to steadily decreasing business it discontinued using a standard dining car on Trains 7 and 8 and substituted the dinerlounge above-mentioned.
Although the record herein is extremely lengthy and replete with contentions and counter-contention, we believe that the issue before the Board in this docket is whether or not under the circumstances here present the Carrier acted within the scope of reasonable managerial discretion in dispensing with the service of stewards on the runs involved in this dispute. The issue herein, is similar to that presented to the Board in Award 702 involving the same parties wherein it was stated:
Carrier asserts and Employes do not deny that there was a steadily declining dining car business on Trains 7 and 8. Carrier produces figures to show that the average receipts on the diner-lounge was one-half of those 4502-20 37
on standard diners on Trains 1 and 2 also operating between Texarkana and' Fort Worth. These figures cover a period from April 4, 1948 to May 14, 1948. It is also clear from the record that the diner-lounge seats about half as many patrons and is manned by a crew half as large as the standard diner. The type of service is also different. We believe the Carrier has shown a reasonable exercise of managerial discretion in assessing service requirements and justification for dispensing with the service of a steward on the trains involved in the instant dispute. It follows that a denial award is in order.
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