Award No. 8828
Docket No. DC-8776
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Norris C. Bakke, Referee
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
JOINT COUNCIL DINING CAR EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 516
GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
Claim of Joint Council Dining Car Employees, Local 516, on the property of the Great Northern Railway Company
for and on behalf of Waiters-in-Charge Paul Wood, Riley Gilchrist and
other employes similarly situated for 66 hours each, per trip, at the current
rate of pay for second cooks for as many trips as said employes made on
Coffee Shop Car assignment, Trains 3 and 4 between January 11, 1955 and
May 24, 1955 for the reason that said employes were required to perform the
duties formerly performed by assigned second cooks in addition to their own
duties as regularly assigned waiters-in-^harge said additional assignment of
second cook duties to waiters-in-charge being in violation of Rules 39(c) and
43 of the current agreement.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS:
In order to properly present
the instant claim as it concerns the matter set forth in the Statement of
Claim, it is necessary to give the chronological history of the assignments
to coffee shop cars on Carrier's trains 3 and 4.
On or about June 9, 1954, Carrier assigned a crew consisting of a
steward, a chef and a waiter No. 1 per bulletin No. 52 (Employes' Exhibit
"A" attached hereto).
On June 11, 1954, the Carrier added as regularly assigned employes,
a third cook and waiter No. 2 per bulletin No. 53 (Employes' Exhibit "B"
attached hereto).
On Sept&ber 23, 1954, the assignment of steward, chef and waiter No. 1
as outlined in bulletin No. 52 (Employes' Exhibit "A") was cancelled (Employes' Exhibit "C").
On September 25, 1954, the assignment of third cook, waiter No. 2
as per bulletin No. 53 (Employes' Exhibit "B" was cancelled (Employes'
Exhibit "D").
Effective September 26, 1954, the Carrier regularly assigned a consist
of crew for coffee shop cars on trains 3 and 4 of the waiter-in-charge and
second cook, bulletin No. 103 (Employes' Exhibit "E").
[2897
9828-9
297
served "from grill car menus such as those (then) in use." Similarly, "The
practice is not inconsistent with the requirements of" the rules.
See, also, Award No. 5354, no referee, which holds:
"OPINION OF BOARD: Effective February 1, 1950 coincident with a change of menus, positions of Coach Cafe Cooks in
buffet-lounge-car on Carrier's Trains Nos. 17 and 18, were abolished and positions of Waiters-in-Charge then in effect were continued. The Waiters-in-Charge were thereafter required to perform
all service on these cars until April 29, 1950 when, due to another
change in menus, the positions of Coach Cafe Cooks were reestablished.
"The Employes present two claims for determination. First,
that Waiters-in-Charge be relieved of performing duties alleged
to be properly those of Coach Cafe Cooks, and second, that
the Coach Cafe Cooks named be reimbursed for time lost as a result
of the abolishment of their assignments.
"As to the second claim, there is no definition of duties of
Coach Cafe Cooks or Waiters-in-Charge contained in the Agreement
between the parties. Therefore, the actions of the parties over a long
period of time is the best evidence of the intentions of the parties
under the Agreement.
"The Carrier has asserted and the Employes do not deny that
it has many times in the past, and as far back as 1940, operated
buffet cars with only a Waiter-in-Charge serving prepared sandwiches, coffee, etc., as in the instant case between February 1, 1950
and April 29, 1950.
"Under the facts in the instant case we find no basis for a
sustaining Award."
And consider Awards Nos, 5308, 5309 and 5310.
This claim is no more than a thinly disguised attempt to draw artificial
and unprecedented limitations upon the duties of waiters-in-charge. Heretofore, the Organization has ignored the traditional functions of waiters-incharge and of second cooks, and has wholly disregarded the right of the Carrier to adjust service according to the demands of the traveling public. Instead,
it has offered only vague assertions concerning a "combination of service"
without offering a scintilla of support for its conclusion that more than one
class of service was performed by the claimants.
There is no foundation for this claim either in the applicable schedule
rules, the awards of this Division, past practice or common sense. It is entirely without merit and should be denied.
It is hereby affirmed that all data herein submitted in support of the
Carrier's Position has been submitted in substance to the Employe Representatives and made a part of the claim.
(Exhibits not reproduced.)
OPINION OF BOARD:
Employes state:
"During the period from January 11, 1955 to May 24, 1956
coffee shop cars on trains 3 and 4, when in service, at all times
8828-to
298
offered items of food including baked ham sandwiches, baked ham
with cheese sandwiches, toast, cheese sandwiches and peanut butter sandwiches. Waiters-in-charge (Claimants) were required to
make sandwiches, prepare food for sandwiches, wash dishes and
perform side work regularly and traditionally performed by second cooks, as shown by Employes' Exhibit `1."'. (Emphasis and parenthesis ours.)
It will be noted the above has reference to what is offered on the coffee
cars "when in service." On February 1,
1955,
the coffee car in question,
as such, was taken out of service and used only as a dormitory car. Meanwhile as of January 11,
1955
the menu was changed so the services of a second cook were no longer required and his services were discontinued. Now
it may be that some of the work previously done by the second cook remained
until February 1st, but before Claimants could have any claim at all it would
be necessary for them to segregate second cooks' work from their own, because Rule
39
(c) provides:
"When more than one class of service is performed on a continuous trip, each part shall be paid for at the rate applicable to
it; x , x._
Certainly there is no showing that the Carrier violated Rule
39(c)
as
alleged in the claim.
Rule
43,
the other rule alleged to have been been violated reads:
"The consist of crews will be determined by the Management
consistent with service requirements, and the duties will be equitably assigned as between the members of the crew. Any special
requirements on bulletined positions will be specified in the bulletin.
Employes under this agreement will not be required to perform
the duties of other classes of employes, other than under urgent or
unusual conditions."
Under this rule Carrier has the right to determine the consist of the crews,
"consistent with service requirements" and employes may be required to perform the duties of other classes in urgent or unusual conditions. These conditions must be determined by the Carrier, and in the record here we feel its
determination was justified in view of the "drastic" falling off of business,
and Rule
43
was not violated.
We think there is no basis for a sustaining award in this case and the
claim should be denied.
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 Cairier and the Employee 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
That the Carrier did not violate the Agreement.
8828-11
299
AWARD
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of THIRD DIVISION
ATTEST: A. Ivan Tummon
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 15th day of May, 1959.