(e) The Board being empowered only to decide this dispute in accordance with the collective bargaining agreement between the parties to it has no authority to grant the new rule here sought by the Brotherhood, nor does it have authority to award the penalty here claimed.
Claim should for all the reasons given be denied and Carrier respectfully requests that the Board so hold.
All relevant facts and arguments involved in this dispute have heretofore been made known to employe representatives.
OPINION OF BOA&D: The Claim here grows out of the fact that on January 22 23 24 and 29 1951 the Carrier required employes occupying Group 1 (Clerk) positions to perform substantial amounts of ticket assorting work regularly assigned to and normally performed in the greater part by occupants of Group 2 (Ticket Assorter) positions, which was done, the Employes say, "for the purpose of or having the effect of absorbing overtime" in violation of Rule 15 of the applicable agreement.
The Carrier defends in part by noting that the Group 1 employes involved herein had all been promoted from Group 2 and, as a consequence, held seniority in both Group 1 and Group 2. In answer to this, however, the Employes point out that under Paragraph 2 of Rule 4 (b) employes who have been promoted from Group 2 to Group 1 and are displaced (the Group 1 employes had not been displaced here) from Group 1 may return to Group 2, but only "provided there is no permanent position in the higher group
* °' on which their seniority rights and qualifications entitle them to place themselves."
The Carrier also asserts that Group 2 employes have no monopoly on ticket assorting work. In this connection it should be noted that Rule 1 classiPes employes by groups, and Rule 2 defines each group. Rule 2 (a) defines Clerks as employes who regularly devote not less than four hours per day "to the writing and calculating incident to keeping records and accounts, rendition of bills, reports and statements, handling of correspondence and similar work * * *" Rule 2 (b) defines Waybill and Ticket Assorters as "Employes engaged. in assorting waybills, tickets, etc." Rule 2 (a) does not specifically mention ticket assorting and the language thereof hardly seems broad enough to encompass such work, unless, and only to the extent that, a limited amount of ticket assorting may reasonably need to be performed by Clerks directly in connection with the duties clearly assigned to their positions. The Record does establish that through the years Group 1 employes have more or less voluntarily performed small amounts (but not substantial amounts) of ticket assorting work primarily to expedite their own work. Without determining whether performance of small amounts of ticket assorting work by Clerks is reasonably necessary and so proper, it suffices to say that, in .regard to the basic issue involved in the present case, the temporary performance by the Group 1 employes of substantial amounts of ticket assorting work having the effect of absorbing overtime was not proper.
The amount of ticket assorting work performed by the Clerks in the present case varied from six to eight hours per employe daily. The Clerks in effect took over Ticket Assorter positions on the days in question. The Record factually indicates that ticket assorting work must be performed currently, that due to a recently adopted staggered work week program for Ticket Assorters (but not for Group 1 employes) only one-half of the full Group 2 crew was available on two of the days in question, and that but for the performance by the Group 1 employes of substantial amounts of ticket assorting work on the days in question overtime would have been required of available Group 2 employes.
In view of the above considerations Claim (a) must be sustained. Claim (b) should be sustained at pro rata rate only. 6394-3s 1241
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving the parties to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon, and upon the 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