NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Francis B. Murphy, Referee
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
AMERICAN TRAIN DISPATCHERS ASSOCIATION
AUGUSTA AND SUMMERVILLE RAILROAD
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
Claim of American Train Dispatchers Association that:
(a) The Augusta & Summerville Railroad, hereinafter referred to as the "Carrier" ignored and violated the requirements of
the Schedule Agreement between the parties when on or about
February 6, 1956, it unilaterally abolished the Second and Third
trick positions held by employes designated by the Carrier as "Block
Operators" located in its Augusta, Georgia office and caused or permitted, and continues to permit, employes of foreign line railroads
to perform duties formerly performed by said Block Operators in the
operation of trains and engines over the tracks of the Augusta &
Summerville Railroad, between the hours of 4:00 P. M. and 8:00
A. M. daily.
(b) The Carrier shall now compensate all employes adversely
affected by the above cited violation of the Agreement for all wage
losses sustained on Second and Third trick positions on each and
every day seven days er week, commencing with February 6, 1956
and continuing until the duties referred to above are restored to the
claimant employes.
(c) A joint check of the Carrier's records involved shall be
made by the Carrier and the General Chairman of the American
Train Dispatchers Association to determine those entitled to the
payments required by paragraph (b) of this claim.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS:
There exists an Agreement
between the parties, effective October 1, 1955. Said Agreement is on file
with your Honorable Board and by this reference is made a part of this submission as though fully incororated herein. For ready reference, Article 1
thereof reads as follows:
[480]
9003-17
496
The abolishment of such jobs did not violate any rules of the current
working agreement. In fact, that agreement provides for the abolishment of
jobs, Article 4 (d), which is quoted hereunder:
"Article 4 (d)-Exercise of Displacement Rights-
An employe may exercise displacement rights to any position
covered by these rules, to which his seniority entitles him, as follows:
1. When his position is abolished.
2. When he is displaced."
Ordinarily when a case is progressed to the Board the parties have had
an exchange of letters and conference or conferences on the claim and in
answering such ex parte submission we are in position to comment upon what
we know will be in the submission. However, in the instant case, we have
no earthly idea as to basis of claim, or what will be filed in support of same.
The claim as filed on May 7, 1956 is a blanket claim and according to General
Chairman, it was his position that employes of foreign line carriers are by the
use of radio and telephone directing train and engine movements. That is
merely a general statement and is supported by no data to back it up. Therefore, it will not be possible at this writing to make any answer to contention
of Petitioners.
To sum up, we have shown that claim should be dismissed (1) for lack
of jurisdiction due to failure of petitioners to comply with the Railway Labor
Act and to the rules of the Board, (2) due to the fact that it is a blanket
claim for unnamed and unknown individuals and dates, and (3) if the Board
retains jurisdiction, then to deny it on the merits.
Because of the manner in which the dispute has been handled, the Carrier is not qualified to affirmatively state that the position of each party has
been fully stated to the other, but Carrier will state that the data contained
in its Statement of Facts is known to Petitioner.
Oral hearing is requested.
(Exhibits not reproduced.)
OPINION OF BOARD:
The evidence in this case reveals that although
the positions involved in this dispute were abolished as of February 6, 1956,
no claim was filed with the Carrier by or on behalf of an operator or operators
for violation of the Agreement or for compensation until May 7, 1956.
On May 7, 1956, the Organization invited the Carrier to hold a conference and discussion of the issues involved, this invitation was accepted by the
Carrier in their letter of May 18, 1956. However, the Organization withdrew
its invitation in a letter to Carrier, May 24, 1956, by refusing to meet with
Carrier in conference and discussing said issues.
Section 2, "General Duties", Second of the Railway Labor Act requires,
and Circular No. 1, The Board's Rules of Procedure, states:
"No petition shall be considered by any division of the Board
unless the subject matter has been handled in accordance with the
provisions of the Railway Labor Act, approved June 21, 1934."
9003-1a
497
For the above procedural defects we are unable to give consideration to
the merits of this case and must remand it for lack of jurisdiction.
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 does not have jurisdiction in
the mutter because the parties have failed to meet the requirements of the
Railway Labor Act.
AWARD
Claim remanded in accordance with the Findings.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of THIRD DIVISION
ATTEST: F. P. Morse
Acting Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this
1st day of October, 1959.