NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
Carroll R. Daugherty, Referee
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY AND STEAMSHIP CLERKS,
FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS AND STATION EMPLOYES
CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE, ST. PAUL AND PACIFIC
RAILROAD COMPANY
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
(1) Carrier violated and continues to violate the Clerks' Rules
Agreement when, effective January 2, 1951, it abolished clerical
position No. 196 at Woonsocket, South Dakota, and assigned the
remaining duties of that position to the Agent and Operator, both
of whom are employes covered by another rules agreement.
(2) Carrier shall restore the clerical work associated with Position No. 196 to the Clerks' Agreement and the employes covered
thereby.
(3) Employe G. B. Flattum shall be compensated fo: all loss
suffered as result of such abolishment; and
(4) Any and all other employes affected by the abolishment
of Position No. 196 shall be compensated in full for all loss suffered
as result thereof from January 2, 1951, until the work of that position
is returned to the scope of the Clerks' Rules Agreement and the
employes covered by that Agreement.
ENIPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS:
For many years the Carrier
maintained a position of Clerk at Woonsocket, South Dakota, the force at
that point prior to February 18, 1946, consisting of the Agent and one clerk.
On February 18, 1946, the Carrier established a position of Operator at
Woonsocket, South Dakota. The force then consisted of the Agent, Operator
and Clerk.
Effective January 2, 1951, the Carrier abolished clerical Position No. 196
at Woonsocket and assigned the work of that position to the Agent and the
[868]
8408-16
ss3
(5) none of the rules of the current schedule support this claim,
but, to the contrary, the carrier's action in abolishing the clerical
position is supported by several rules of the clerks schedule;
(6) the carrier's action in abolishing the clerical position at
Woonsocket is supported by the awards of the Third Division. These
awards show that under circumstances like those at hand, telegraphers may perform work previously performed by a clerk, and that
this is particularly true when the work at a station diminishes to a
point where it becomes a one-man station;
(7) Award 5785, the Sanborn case, does not support the employes in the Instant dispute because Sanborn did not become a oneman station, and because the arguments advanced by the employes in
the Sanborn case indicate that they agree that a clerical position
might be abolished under circumstances such as those which actually
existed at Woonsocket. Furthermore, the carrier submits that Award
5785 did not reach the correct result;
(8) it would be inequitable to sustain this claim because the
carrier should not be required to maintain an unnecessary position.
The employes involved would not benefit, and the organization, the
carrier and the general public would suffer by imposing upon the
carrier the wasteful and extravagant maintenance of such an unnecessary position;
(9) no employe suffered any loss because of the carrier's action
in this case.
We, therefore, submit that the claim is entirely without merit and should
be denied.
All data contained herein has been made known to the employes and
conference has been held on the property.
(Exhibits not reproduced.)
OPINION OF BOARD:
It is clear from the language of the claim and
from the record of the case that the Telegraphers are an interested third
party in this dispute between the Clerks and the Carrier. Study of the record
suggests the possibility of an affirmative award directly affecting the interests
of the Telegraphers.
It is necessary, therefore, first to consider the question of notice to the
third party at interest. This issue has been before this Board many times, and
the arguments pro and con need not be repeated and belabored here. It is
sufficient (1) to hold that this Board is bound to respect the decisions of the
several federal courts as to the interpretation of Section 3, First (j) of the
Railway Labor Act, as amended; and (2) to point out that this holding follows
the discussion and reasoning set forth in prior Awards 7975, 8022 and 8200.
FINDINGS:
The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, 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;
8408-17
884
That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein, subject to the following finding as to notice:
That the Order of Railroad Telegraphers is involved in this dispute and
is therefore entitled to notice of hearing pursuant to Section 3, First (j) of the
Railway Labor Act, as amended;
That the merits of the instant dispute are not properly subject to decision
until said notice is given.
AWARD
Hearing and decision on merits deferred pending due notice to the Order
of Railroad Telegraphers to appear and be represented in this proceeding if it
so desires.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of THIRD DIVISION
ATTEST: A. Ivan Tummon
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 18th day of July, 1958.