STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: On July 6, 1943 Carrier issued Bulletin No. 47 advertising a new position of Abstract Clerk. The duties assigned to the position were:
The Carrier applied the negotiated rate of pay for the work shown on the bulletin.
On February 5, 1948 this same position was again bulletined and the duties assigned were shown on the bulletin as:
Immediately after the above bulletin was issued claim was filed for proper rate of pay because of the position having been assigned work of an accountant.
The claim was progressed up to the Acting General Manager who declined the claim contending that this matter had been handled and disposed of in 1932, notwithstanding this position was not created until in July 1943.
After conference March 10, 1948 the Carrier reissued the bulletin of February 5, 1948 indicating a change in the work, however no change of any
Gulf Coast Lines Accountant" and the claim was that she be paid time and one-half at $9.64 per day for September 1st, and that in addition to the payment of her regular rate for September 2nd and 3rd she also be paid two additional days at $9.64 per day. The claim was handled by correspondence and conference through April 3, 1948.
Second: Then under date of February 24, 1948, their file number G-1672 another claim was filed because certain work was included in description of duties in a bulletin posting position of Abstract Clerk as vacant.
Third: Then on April 3, 1948, under their file number G-1762, the General Chairman referred further to the work shown in Bulletin No. 17.
Fourth: Then on September 23, 1948, under his file number G-1792, the General Chairman again referred to Bulletin No. 17 and stated his intention to submit the claim to this Board.
Fifth: And finally, in his letter of November 1, 1948, to President Harrison, in which he requested the latter to serve the usual notice on the Secretary of the Third Division he reverted to File No. G-1762, and stated the vague and indefinite claim as first quoted hereinabove.
POSITION OF CARRIER: It is the position of the Carrier, first, that until it is in receipt of more definite information as to exactly what the Employes are claiming in their dispute it cannot prepare an adequate defense in this dispute.
It is the further position of the Carrier, based upon its understanding of the claims that have been handled with i, that such claims are without merit and must be denied under Rule 50 of the governing Agreement, reading:
"(a) Employes temporarily or permanently assigned to higher rated positions or work shall receive the higher rates for the full day while occupying such position or performing such work; employes temporarily assigned to lower rated positions or work shall not have their rates reduced.
OPINION OF BOARD: This claim is for reclassification of the position of Abstract Cleric due to the alleged assignment of Accountant's duties to the position and is based on Rule 50, which reads as follows:
(c) Assisting a highe rated employe due to a temporary increase in the volume of work, does not constitute a temporary assignment."
The Organization stresses the phraseology "position or work." Certainly it is not the intent of the rule to pay a higher rate for the performance of every task which an accountant might perform. For example an accountant might sharpen his pencil but so might an office boy, or an accountant might 4567-13 736
use an adding machine but so do lower rated clerks. Surely sharpening one's pencil or operating an adding machine is not necessarily performing the work of an accountant. Hence it can only be the assignment of work significant to the position of Accountant which will justify payment of the rate for Accountant.
The record does not contain a description of the duties of an accountant except as stated in Petitioner's Exhibit "A" that in 1932 he "was supposed to handle the cash book and make junction settlements."
Generally making an abstract is simply to list specific information about certain transactions. The duties stated as (1), (3) and (4) above are simply listing and balancing tasks and hence are more significant of an Abstract Clerk's work than an Accountant's work. Moreover the Carrier presented evidence to show that they were always regarded as part of the duties of an Abstract Clerk. The Organization relied upon a statement by an accountant that such were accountant's duties prior to 1943. It appears that he did perform such duties and all abstract work prior to the creation of the job of Abstract Clerk in 1943.
An Accountant may perform all of the book and paper work in an office in slack times but that does not mean that all of it is work significant of an accountant's position. Surely the lower rated duties he is performing may be assigned to clerks when business volume increases without making all of them eligible for accountant's pay. So considered his statement is without significance.
Item (2) above is alleged by the Carrier, without refutation, to consist solely of watching the figures on an adding machine tape to detect errors while the Accountant calls back the figures. That duty is not significant of the position of Accountant as it will necessarily be done by every lower rated clerk who operates an adding machine.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board upon the whole record and all the evidence, find 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, 1943;
That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and