PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

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



STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes on the Missouri Pacific Railroad, that the Carrier violated the Clerks' Agreement:





Classification Amount
or Title and Claim Claimed
Name Rate Dates Per Day Amount
Miss Marie Schuh Lead Voucher J u 1 y 16, .75 hours at
Clerk, $16.55 1954, a n d p u n i tive
per day. each work hourly rate
date there- of $3.101
after per hour $2.33


7369-2 73
Classification Amount
or Title and Claim Claimed
Name Rate Dates Per Day Amount
Holly Baker Stenographer, Same as .38 hours at
$14.06 per day above p u n i tive
hourly rate
of $2.636
per hour 1.00
Mrs. Eva Wolters Labor Same as 1.5 hours at
Statistical above p u n i tive
Clerk, $15.81 hourly rate
per day of $2.964
per hour 4.46
Francis J. Chulick Labor Same as .38 hours at
Statistical above punitive
Clerk, $15.81 hourly rate
per day of $2.964
per hour 1.13
Eldon E. Hall Timekeeper- Same as 1.7 hours at
Clerk, $16.17 above p u n i tive
per day hourly rate
of $3.032
per hour 6.15
Edwin A. Fisher Chief Same as 1.5 hours at
Accountant above punitive
$17.37 per day hourly rate
of $3.257
per hour 4.89
Joseph Feranec Timekeeper- Same as .38 hours at
Clerk, $16.17 above p u n i tive
per day hourly rate
of $3.032
per hour 1.15
Robert A. Scheve Timekeeper- Same as .38 hours at
Clerk, $16.17 above p u n i tive
per day hourly rate
of $3.032
per hour 1.15





EMPLOYES STATEMENT OF FACTS: The consolidated seniority district and roster of clerical employes of the Auditor Disbursements-Stores Accounting (Supply Department) was created by mutual agreement of the parties effective February 1, 1954; copy of Memorandum of Agreement dated December 30, 1953 is made a part of the record designated as Employes' Exhibit "A". It embraces all employes of Class "A" and "B" of the Auditor Disbursements Department and also of the Stores Accounting (Supply Department) in the General Offices and on the line of road (system).

The two General Managers' territorial seniority districts and rosters of Class "A" and "B" clerical employes are divided into two separate and distinct seniority districts-



7369-29 100

Agreement involved in the instant case specifically authorizes what was done in Award 2354.


The situation in Award 3656 is similar to that in Award 2354 except that hours of caller positions in Group 2 were adjusted to leave no caller on duty for two hours within a twenty-four hour period and an employe in Group 1 did the calling during the two-hour period.


In Award 4653 the same work involving the same freight traffic movement was discontinued at a station in one seniority district and assigned to employes in another seniority district. There was no abandonment of traffic movement in one district and establishment of a different movement in another.


In Award 4674 an employe in one seniority district was utilized to perform a portion of the duties of a position in another seniority district while the incumbent of the latter position was absent due to illness.


We think it is obvious the circumstances in the instant case are not the same as in any of the cases covered by the Awards cited by the Employes.


AR the Carrier did in this case was to put the timekeeping and accounting work for the newly established traveling electrician force in the offices where it belonged under the seniority districting prescribed in the Agreement. There was no crossing of seniority district lines; work was abandoned in one district, and work was established in another. The work belongs to the employes to whom it is assigned, and these claimants have no rights to it.




OPINION OF BOARD: Petitioners contend that Carrier could not transfer work across seniority district lines without negotiations and that no negotiations were had prior to the transfer of the work in question. This contention Carrier denies.


It is further contended by petitioners that the effect of Carrier's action was to permit the employes in the seniority district and on the seniority rosters of the General Managers at Kansas City and Little Rock, to perform the timekeeping and related clerical work in question, to the detriment of the seniority rights of Claimant employes in St. Louis, citing Awards 753 and 1808 with rules of the Agreement, notably Rule 5.


Respondent Carrier contends that all positions of traveling electricians and helpers were abolished, except lead positions at St. Louis, Little Rock and Kansas City offices and new seniority districts were estblished on a division instead of the former system basis. That the timekeeping and accounting work was assigned to clerical forces holding seniority rights to all division work under Rule 5, and that as traveling electricians were no longer system forces and Claimants were no longer entitled to the work here considered as the same by this change belonged to division clerical forces. Also that no employes were adversely affected as the work was placed where it belonged and under the seniority districts provided by the Agreement in Rule 5.


We are of the opinion that Carrier has the right to determine the method by which work shall be performed if no contract provision limits such right. Therefore that change made in the performance of work from a system to a district setup is permissible and we find no fault with the method by which the work was then assigned and do not believe such assignment was in violation of cited rules of the Agreement. The sysetm work ceased to exist and as we view it the work was placed in the proper districts and cannot be said to have been taken across senioriy district lines as here contended and therefore conference and agreement was not necessary. On this record we feel that the claims should be denied.

7369-30 101

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





    Claims denied.


              NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD By Order of Third Division


              ATTEST: A. Ivan Tummon

              Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois this 28th day of June, 1966.