PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY AND STEAMSHIP CLERKS, FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS AND STATION EMPLOYES



STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:



EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: For years the Carrier has maintained a force at its freight house at Des Moines, Iowa which was made up of clerical and non-clerical positions and employes who were, as shown by Rule 1 of the Agreement, separated into two classes of service:












964 7-15 941











There is no basis whatever for the claim presented in behalf of Claimant Nucaro and the Carrier respectfully requests that it be denied.






OPINION OF BOARD: The controversy before us relates to the abolition on December 12, 1957, of the full-time Trucker position at the Carrier's Des Moines, Iowa, Freight House. Claimant, who had almost fifteen years seniority in that position, was its incumbent at the time it was abolished and was furloughed on that date.


Immediately prior to December 12, 1957, the Carrier maintained at the Freight House, in addition to the Foreman, two Class (a) clerical positions of Check Clerk and Chief Delivery Clerk and two Class (b) non-clerical positions of Trucker and Trucker-Caller. Claimant had about fourteen years more

9647-16 942

service with the Carrier than had the Chief Delivery Clerk but because he could not read or write English, was unable to apply for that position when it became vacant on March 4, 1957.


The Petitioner charges that on and after December 12, 1957, there still was fulltime trucker work for one man and the remaining three employes divided that work between them, performing it in addition to their other duties. It is its position that the Carrier violated the controlling Agreement by abolishing the position of Trucker and distributing the freight trucking work among positions classified as clerical. In support of its position, Petitioner points to the fact that separate seniority rosters are maintained for Class (a) or clerical employes and for Class (b) employes, which later classification includes truckers.


The Carrier maintains that its business had declined and it became necessary to abolish one position, and that since Claimant was holding the lowest rated position and was unable to qualify for a higher rated position where he might exercise his seniority over a junior employe, he was placed on a furloughed status.


It is well established that, in the absence of limitations imposed by law or contract, it is the prerogative of management to abolish a position if such discontinuance is essential to a program of good management or sound economy, (See Awards 5803, 6022, 6945, 8526.) However, where obligations are imposed by collective bargaining agreements with respect to job classifications, their compensation and other incidents, the contracting parties must live and comply with these obligations unless they are changed by mutual agreement.


The difficulty with the Petitioner's position in the present situation is that it does not affirmatively appear either in the applicable Agreement or in custom or practice that the work of the Trucker position belonged exclusively to the incumbents of that position, The mere fact that Claimant may have performed Trucker duties over a long period of time does not give him the exclusive right to their performance. (See Awards 7954 and 7031.) Evidence submitted by the Carrier supports its assertion that even prior to Claimant's furlough on December 12, 1957, Class (a) employes were customarily called upon to perform trucking work at the Freight House.


The Scope Provision of the Agreement defines a Class (a) employe as one who devotes at least four hours of his working day to clerical duties, and Class (b) employes merely as all other employes. There is no provision that Class (a) employes shall not do any trucking work and no rule prohibits the performance of manual work by Class (a) employes. In view of this situation, we can not find that trucking duties exclusively belonged to Claimant. On the contrary, in our opinion the controlling Agreement contemplates that Class (a) employes may perform some trucking and manual work.


The fact that separate seniority rosters are maintained for Class (a) and Class (b) employes does lend some measure of support to the Petitioner's contentions. Yet, in our view, this circumstance is not sufficient to overcome the defect in Petitioner's position, namely, that no showing of a sharply defined job classification of trucker with exclusivity of work is established by the record.

9047-17 943

In view of the foregoing discussion, we must deny the claim. See Awards 7167, 6140 and 2011.

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 ;

That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and





    Claim denied.


              NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

              By Order of THIRD DIVISION


              ATTEST: S. H. Schulty

              Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 4th day of November, 1969.