PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY AND STEAMSHIP CLERKS, FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS AND STATION EMPLOYES

CHICAGO, BURLINGTON AND QUINCY RAILROAD COMPANY

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Board of Adjustment, Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes:




EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Prior to the year 1947 the Galesburg, Illinois, Terminal of the Carrier was under the direct supervision and operation of the Carrier's Division Superintendent located at Galesburg (Passenger Station). The Yard operations, consisting primarily of supervising the break up and make up of trains, was under the immediate jurisdic-


fissl-lfi 1206

The Carrier affirmatively asserts that all of the data herein and herewith submitted has been previously submitted to the Employes.




OPINION OF BOARD: In November 1947, a new position of Terminal Superintendent was created and established in the office at Willis Yard to supervise and direct the work of clerical forces and all terminal operations at Galesburg, Illinois.


The Employes' contention is that establishment of a Terminal Superintendent's position at Galesburg called for creation and establishment of two new clerical positions, (1) Chief Clerk to Terminal Superintendent, and (2) Stenographer-Secretary to Terminal Superintendent in order to take care of additional duties and added responsibility said to have been occasioned by transfer of certain work from the Division Superintendent's office to the newly created Terminal Superintendent's office.


An increase in the work-load is shown to have resulted in connection with reorganizing the work in the Willis Yard office, but we are not satisfied that there was any great change in the character of service. Except for isolated instances, the nature of the work continued the same.


A formal protest first was lodged by the Employe Representative in January 1950. The work-load was reduced by adding another general clerk position in January 1951.


The Petitioner cites no pertinent rule unless it be Rule 44, and even before that rule can be of any binding force and effect in wage matters, one must find that a new position in fact exists. Other wage inequities continue subject to bargaining by and between parties to the Agreement.


Being satisfied from our review of the record that this dispute involves more in the way of a proposal to re-evaluate positions and increase wages of existing positions than the rating of new positions for wage purposes, the claim will be denied.


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






    Claim denied.


                NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: (Sgd.) A. Ivan Tummon
Secretary

Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 4th day of February, 1955.