The above records which are incontrovertible show that when the agreement between the Agency and the Brotherhood was executed effective March 16, 1942, the employes then on piece work assignments were compensated on a dual pay basis, i.e., they were being compensated at the piece work rate for work performed, plus fifteen cents (15c) per hour for each hour actually worked, and as specifically provided for in paragraph (a) of Rule 43 reading:

"The present basis of pay will be continued."

Under these circumstances, Item (a) of claim providing:

"The Stock Yards District Agency (hereinafter referred to as the Carrier) failed to apply certain provisions of the National Wage Increase Agreement, dated Washington, January 17, 1944, and subsequent National Wage Increase Agreements, dated Chicago, April 4, 1946; Washington, D. C., May 25, 1946; Chicago, Illinois, September 3, 1947; Chicago, Illinois, March 19, 1949; and Washington, D. C., March 1, 1951, to employes of the Carrier occupying clerical positions paid on a piece-work rate basis",

is incorrect and a nullity, since all wage increases stipulated in the aforementioned claim have been made in conformity with the Agreement between the parties effective March 16, 1942.

All data herein has been submitted to the Brotherhood in conference or in correspondence.

(Exhibits not reproduced.)

OPINION OF BOARD: The facts material to a determination of this dispute appear to be as follows:

(1) In the "Agreement Governing Hours of Service and Working Conditions" between the parties to this dispute, Rule 43 (a) reads:

"The present bases of pay will be continued."

(2) In each of the National Wage Agreements stated in the instant claim, to which the Carrier and the Organization became parties, the application of the agreed-on wage rate increases to piece rates was dealt with in a subsection (e), which reads:

"Adjustment of piece-work rates of pay shall be based on the amount of increase applicable to the basic hourly rate for the class of work performed. Where piece-work rates of pay are in effect on carriers having special rules as to the application of any increase, or decrease, in such rates, such rules shall apply. In the absence of any definite rule governing, the equivalent of . . cents per hour shall be added to the unit piece-work price."

(3) In accordance with its practice in applying hourly wage rate increases to clerical piece workers during years (e.g., 1937) before its first agreement with the Organization (1942), the Carrier maintained existing piece rates during the years of the abovementioned national agreements and applied the rate increases of those agreements to piece workers by multiplying their hoursworked by the amounts of the increases and adding the results to their piece-work earnings.

(4) The issue before this Board has been the subject of unsuccessful negotiation between the parties since 1944.

(5) During that period the Carrier made at least three proposals for adjustment of the dispute.

(a) In 1944 it proposed to raise existing piece rates by a percentage obtained as follows: divide the straighttime piece-work earnings for a stated period into the amounts of additional pay provided by multiplying the straight-time hours worked during the period by the hourly wage rate increases stated in the wage agreement(s).

(b) In 1949 it proposed to increase existing piece rates by an amount obtained as follows: multiply piece rate men's hours worked during a given period by the amount of hourly increase provided in the wage agreement(s). Divide this result by the number of "pieces produced". Then add this result to the existing piece rate.

(c) After the Organization had proposed to apply the hourly increases of the agreements to piece workers by raising the daily basic minimum pay of such workers, the Carrier countered by offering to establish hourly minimum rates.

(6) During the period, the Organization declined the Carrier's offers, contending that if the piece rates were increased as proposed by the Carrier, earnings would be lower than those afforded under the existing system (see (3) above). The Organization counteroffered a minimum daily rate guarantee for such workers, as indicated above.

(7) The issue now before this Board was one of those before an Emergency Board in 1949. That Board declined to pass on w,.

dispute, disclaiming jurisdiction, and remanded it to the parties for bargaining.

The Carrier challenges the jurisdiction of this Board in respect to the claim arising out of this eight-year old dispute. It contends that under the Railway Labor Act-Section 3 First (!)-this Board is limited to settling grievances and interpretative disputes arising out of and/or under existing collective bargaining agreements; whereas the instant dispute involves proposed changes in rates of pay and accordingly is concerned with what amounts to a proposed new agreement. As such, the dispute is asserted to be subject to the provisions of Section 5, First, of the Act.

On the merits of the instant claim, the Carrier contends, Rule 43 (a), quoted above, establishes that the Organization has agreed since 1942 to accept the methods used by the Carrier in applying hourly increases to piece workers.

The Organization strongly denies any such acquiescence. It contends that the word "bases" refers not to methods of applying hourly increases but to systems of wage payment, e.g., hourly rate vs. piece rate.

The Organization also contends that the dispute is properly before this Board.

Our first concern, then, is with the question of jurisdiction. On this we think the answer is clear: The dispute is properly before us, at least in part. It involves, in part, a matter of interpreting a series of wage agreements to which the Carrier and the Organization were and are parties. Section 3, First (i) of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, empowers the National Railroad Adjustment Board to finally determine disputes over the interpretation of existing agreements. The several sub-sections (e), quoted above, are parts of such agreements. Therefore we conclude we hold jurisdiction on at least this question: Has the Carrier properly applied to the eight piece workers involved in this case the provisions of sub-section(s). (e) of the national wage agreements listed in the claim?

On this question, we think the record compels the answer "no". The Agreement between the parties contains no special rules governing the application of hourly rate increases or decreases to piece-work rates. Therefore the last sentence of sub-sections) (e) is controlling. It requires that the "equivalent" (i.e., not necessarily the actual amount) of an hourly rate increase must be added to the piece-work rate per unit of output for a given class of work. We do not think that the method used by the Carrier over some fifteen years fulfills this requirement. No amounts were added to existing piece rates as such. The employes were given the increases just the same as if they had been hourly rate men. Their piece rates remained unadjusted.

We do not think that Rule 43 (a) of the parties' Rules Agreement discloses acquiescence by the Organization in the method used by the Carrier to apply hourly rate increases to piece workers. The word "bases" is decidedly ambiguous. But the record fails to establish that both parties meant to abide by the methods previously used by the Carrier in applying such increases.

Our negative ruling here of course throws no light on the question of what, under the wage agreements, is the proper method of applying hourly rate increases to these piece workers. On this matter we believe our jurisdiction is restricted to the suggestion of a general governing principle that will give effect to the requirement of sub-sections) (e). And we believe that the parties should, on the basis of this principle, negotiate their differences to a successful conclusion without further recourse to third parties or outside agencies.

The principle is this: In respect to the hourly rate increase established in a given wage agreement, raise a given position's and/or employe's piece rate by an amount which, for the position's and/or employe's average level of output during an appropriate period, will produce for such period earnings that are as high as but no higher than the total earnings, piece rate and hourly, which are afforded for such period by the method thus far used by the Carrier.

We are of the opinion that good-faith negotiation by the parties on the basis of this principle wil produce agreement and finally settle the controversy.

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

That the Carrier thus far failed to comply with the relevant provisions of the national wage agreements, 1944-1951.

AWARD