POSITION OF CARRIER: It is the Carrier's contention that the form of bulletin is adequate and complies with the rule and the General Chairman's understanding referred to in his letter quoted in the Carrier's Statement of Facts. Just because the General Chairman has now decided that the description part of the bulletin-is unsatisfactory to him does not make it a rule violation.

In view of the agreed upon understanding, as to the form of bulletin between the parties referred to in the General Chairman's letter of December 1, 1948, the Carrier questions the authority of the Adjustment Board to upset the agreed upon understanding by the issuance of a sustaining award. The work of a mail and baggage handler is that which the title implies. It can be conceived that the general location and working hours of a particular position might be important to an applicant but in describing the duties of a mail and baggage handler position, the statement that the duties will be that of handling mail and baggage is all that is really necessary.

(Exhibits not reproduced.)

OPINION OF BOARD: The claim of the System Committee is that the Carrier is violating Bulletin Rule 6 by failing to describe properly the duties of positions when posting new positions for Mail and Baggage Handlers.

Rule 6 of the current' Agreement provides that when new positions or vacancies are posted the bulletin shall show "location, title and description of position, assigned hours of service, assigned day of rest and rate of pay." The rule aso includes the following paragraph:

"The description of duties in bulletins covering Mail and Baggage Handlers positions shall not prevent temporary changes m

assignments in the course of a day's work which may become necessary because of irregularities in train arrivals and departures and volume of business to be handled."

The complaint is limited to the practice of the Carrier in giving a "description of position" in its bulletins of new or vacant positions. An example of the method followed is found in Bulletin No. 967 where the "description and location" of the position was stated as follows: "Loading and unloading trains on west end of station platform and working other places as found necessary". This may be a description of the position is it also a "description" of duties? By use of the word "duties" with respect to bulletins of positions for Mail and Baggage Handlers, the parties have expanded the meaning of "description of position" The word "duties" means assigned services, and to such extent expands the meaning of "description of position". Something more than a generic term or phrase is required under the rule. While some positions and the duties thereof might be described by a single term, others may require greater detail. The apparent object of the rule which the parties have adopted is to acquaint applicants for the position with the nature of the work attached. The rule does not however, anticipate a description of the work as such. The phrase "loading and unloading" trains may or may not be a description of the position. It would depend upon the regular duties or service expected.

The Organization in its submission requests that their claim (b) be sustained to the end that the elements of work assignments as set forth in a number of exhibits be included in the Bulletins. To do this would require the Carrier to describe the detail of the work of a bulletined position. The rule does not require an itemization of the work. Particularly in light of the historical development of this rule it is now apparent that the parties have agreed that the Bulletin for a new job or vacancy for Mail and Baggage Handlers will include, besides the title of the job, a description which will be broad enough to inicate the functions of the position. The request of the Organization in claim (b) goes beyond the language of the rule. We do not, however, approve all of the Bulletins issued by the Carrier and set forth in Employes' Exhibits 3 to 18, inclusive (compare Exhibits 18 and 23), nor disapprove all of them. As an example, if the description of duties set forth in Exhibit 23 is the usual work of that position, then we think the Bulletin No. 981, Exhibit 18, is inadequate for failure to note the work on cream cans dock and in the sub-basement.

While it thus appears that on the basis of the record claim (a) should be sustained; it also appears from other instances cited that Bulletins adequately described positions. For an example, compare Bulletin 970 Employes Exhibit 7 and Employes' Exhibit 20 escription of Duties. On the other hand claim (b) which requests that Bulletins show a "complete and accurate description of duties" to be performed, goes beyond the requirements of the rule. The words "complete and accurate description" connotes a detailed statement that could only result in a description of the work. The intent of the rule does not go that far.

We cannot prepare the Bulletins. The burden for this is on the Carrier, and in the light of the history of this controversy we recommend to the parties that further conferences be held to develop an application of the rule that will accomplish the full intent of the parties as expressed by the Bulletin Rule and at the same time not burden the Carrier by resulting stratification of the work in the absence of an agreement to that effect.

The Carrier contended that the parties had on September 30 1946, reached an understanding as to the interpretation of Rule 6, and that this Board is without authority to modify such agreement. This understanding was between the Mail and Baggage Agent of the Carrier and the General Chairman. It was an oral understanding which never became a part of the current Agreement, and was revocable at the will of either party. The Organization cancelled the understanding on December 1, 1948.

This is a matter for further negotiation.

AWARD