CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE, ST. PAUL AND PACIFIC RAILROAD
COMPANY
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: There are two regular baggageman positions at Mason City, Iowa which are non-clerical positions. The employes obtain those positions by means of their non-clerical seniority. These baggagemen handle the headend lading on Train No. 11. For many years there has also been in existence in the Superintendent's office at Mason City, Iowa, position No. 11, classified as File Clerk.
Effective January 16, 1946, a new Rules Agreement was made between the parties, Rule 9(c) of which reads as follows:
Subsequent to the date of the new Agreement, bulletins have been furnished to the General Chairman, and a review of those bulletins shows that Position No. 11 has been bulletined on numerous occasions. We attach as Employes' Exhibits "A", "B", "C", "D", "E" and "F" a copy of the bulletins advertising Position No. il since January 16, 1946.
Carrier from adding to or taking away any of the duties of a position. This is one of the prerogatives of management and as we said in Award 5331, 'the assignment of work necessary for its operations lies within Carrier's discretion', such action by Carrier applies to the claim before us."
We also quote the following from the Opinion in Award 5331 to which reference is made in the above quotation:
At the beginning of the Carrier's position we stated this dispute involved the question as to "whether or not a clerk, during his regular 8 hour tour of duty, can perform, as part of the regularly assigned duties of his assignment, non-clerical work which amounts to approximately 45 minutes per day". We feel that under the facts and circumstances existing as outlined in the Carrier's presentation and in view of the schedule rules, that question must be resolved in the affirmative, and we respectfully request that the claim be denied.
OPINION OF BOARD: Before proceeding to consider this claim on its merits we must consider whether Organization's claim in behalf of Mary B. Hickey is properly before us.
On August 2, 1950, Carrier advertised a vacancy in the position of File Clerk in the Superintendent's Office.
On August 18, 1950, R. M. Irons was appointed to the position. On September 27, 1950 he was inducted into the armed forces and the File Clerk position was vacant.
On September 13, 1950 the File Clerk position had again been bulletined as vacant. The duties were described in the same language used in the bulletin of August 2, 1950, Supra.
Mary B. Hickey, the principal claimant here, bid on the position and it was awarded to her by Clerks' Bulletin No. 112, issued September 22, 1950.
The following day, September 23, 1950, Claimant Hickey addressed the following letter to Carrier's Superintendent:
Regardless of what Organization now claims her reasons to be for such withdrawal, the fact remains she did, in truth and in fact, withdraw her bid 8229-16 (jjl
for the position in question-a position Carrier had awarded her the day previous, and she ascribed no reason for her action.
Accordingly, we hold that Rule 9(n) of the Agreement automatically became operative. It reads, in part, as follows:
Therefore, Rule 9(n) providing that Mary B. Hickey "relinquished" the File Clerk position in question without reason, we must and do conclude that neither Mary B. Hickey nor the Organization has any valid grounds upon which to initiate or process a claim, based on such position, before this Division.
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