STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Effective July 31, 1954, coal chute operator J. L. Brown was furloughed when the Carrier abolished his position at New London, Iowa.
On October 12, 13, 18, 20, 21, 28, 29, November 2, 3, 5 and 8, 1954 section laborers were assigned to perform the work of unloading coal at this point and consumed four (4) hours' t'me on each of the foregoing dates listed, except for November 8, 1954 when such employes worked two (2) hours.
Appropriate claim was filed in behalf of furloughed coal chute operator J. L. Brown. The Carrier has denied the claim.
The Agreement in effect between the two parties to this dispute dated September 1, 1949, together with supplements, amendments, and interpretations thereto are by reference made a part of this Statement of Facts.
POSITION OF EMPLOYES: The instant claim stems from the Carrier abolishing the claimant's position of coal chute operator on July 31, 1954 at New London, Iowa, and assigning the work of unloading coal at this point to section laborers, who hold no seniority rights in Group 7, Grade A, of Rule 2 (b) on the dates set forth in the Employes' Statement of Facts.
The Carrier affirmatively asserts that all data herein and herewith submitted has previously been submitted to the Employes.
OPINION OF BOARD: The pertinent part of Rule 1 of the Scope Rule reads:
The claim shows that Claimant would have worked 28 hours during the month of October which figured at the rate of $1.35 an hour (rate given in the agreement) would amount to $37.80, and 14 hours for the month of November would be $18.90, both below the $50.00 a month minimum fixed by the above rule.
Carrier says it gave the work to "an" employe, a section laborer, while the Organization contends that it was given to the section forces (and the record does use that language too), but it would seem to be a one man operation, or else Claimant would have to show the actual man hours performed by the men who were doing his work and since Claimant did all the work by himself after November 9th it would appear to be a one man operation.
Carrier concedes that "claimant was the only employe on the seniority district holding seniority as a coal chute operator," and gave him the assignment when it was made a full time job on November 9th, but until that time it was "work" within rule 1(b) supra.
In all of the awards submitted to the referee in this case only one award involved coal chute operators, and in that award (4490) we sustained a claim of some engine watchmen for engine watching, work that had been taken away from them, and given to the coal chute operators because the .work under the scope agreement belonged to the engine watchman, and the employes rely on the award here no doubt on the same theory that work 8816-11 161
taken away from them under a similar segregation of work justifies the claim here in tote.
However, in Award 4490 there was no $50 limitation in the scope rule, nor does it appear in any of the other awards cited to us.
Our conclusion is that Carrier did not violate the Agreement and claim should be denied.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after givthe 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 Employe involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employe 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