THE DENVER AND RIO GRANDE WESTERN RAILROAD
COMPANY
All data in support of Carrier's position has been submitted to the Organization and made a part of the particular question in dispute. The right to answer any data not previously submitted to Carrier by Organization is reserved by Carrier.
OPINION OF BOARD: It is contended by Petitioner that Carrier violated the current Agreement which became effective November 1, 1953, when on March 22, 1954, the Carrier moved crew dispatching work at Salida, Colorado, from Seniority District No. 24 to Seniority District No. 21 and that the Carrier be directed to return the crew dispatching work to Seniority District No. 24, and to conduct a joint cheek in order to determine wage loss sustained by the named claimants and employes who may have been adversely affected by the action taken.
Carrier supports its position on the theory that it proceeded under the provisions of Rule 21, which reads as follows:
and by the refusal of the Organization to compose the differences between the parties by proceeding under the provisions of Rule 21, thereby becoming in conflict of Award 6066 of this Division and citing from that Award the following:
The Organization takes the position that there is a distinction between the situation considered in Award 6066 and the application of Rule 21 as the same applies to the instant case and points out and stresses that part of the Rule "Under a centralized bureau or department" and that the intent and purpose of this rule is clearly stated and it does not apply to a situation being considered here. Hence, that this rule has no application.
We are of the opinion that when the Organization was served with notice of Carrier's desire to negotiate under Rule 21, that it was incumbent upon the Organization to do so and its failure based on the theory that the Rule is not applicable, was not proper. It would seem that the Organization in this situation took an extremely narrow and technical view of the situation by its failure to negotiate and in view of this situation we feel that Carrier was within its right to proceed as it did. We fail to agree with Petitioner's contention that Rule 21 and Award 6066 should not have been considered by the Petitioner prior to its refusal to negotiate and in view of this these claims fail.
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: 7384-21 353
Interpretation No. 1 to Award No. 7384
Docket No. CL-7341
NAME OF ORGANIZATION: Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes.
NAIVIE OF CARRIER: The Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad Company.
Upon application of the representatives of the employes involved in the above Award, that this Division interpret the same in the light of the dispute between the parties as to its meaning and application, as provided for in Section 3, First (m) of the Railway Labor Act, approved June 21, 1934, the following interpretation is made:
This ex parte request for an interpretation of the provisions of Award 7384 presents a matter which we view to be strictly one of law under the provisions of the Railway Labor Act, as amended.
The request, as will be noted, presents an unusual situation, in that, apparently the parties have now reversed their respective positions. In the original consideration of this case by the Board it was the position of the Organization that the provisions of Rule 21 of the agreement did not apply and therefore the Organization refused to negotiate the matter. This Board found that the provisions of Rule 21 did apply and by reason of the failure of the Organization to negotiate a denial award was rendered. Now it is the position of the Organization that negotiation of these claims under Rule 21 should be held and Carrier refuses to negotiate the same. Hence, it appears to be the position of the Organization at this time that Carrier is violating the provisions of Rule 21 of the agreement.
This, we view, is not a proper matter for our consideration in an interpretation of Award 7384 but presents a new issue and, therefore, is not a proper matter for our consideration at this time. It will be noted that Award 7384 did not remand the same to the parties for negotiation but by reason of the fact that the Organization refused to negotiate as provided in Rule 21 the claims failed.
As stated, under the provisions of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, we can only consider this request for an interpretation to be the presenting of a new issue and hence not a proper matter for us to consider at this time.