STATEMENT OF CLAIM: * * * for and in behalf of E. L. Stanley, E. L. Stanley, J. Williams #5, A. Leonard, A. Anderson, G. J. Chase, K. D. Leufroy, G. J. Chase, E. H. Simon, D. Johnson, and U. P. Jupiter, who are now-, and for a number of years past have been, employed by The Pullman Company as porters operating out of the District of New Orleans, Louisiana.
Because The Pullman Company did finally, through Appeals Officer W. W. Dodds of The Pullman Company, deny the claims filed for and in behalf of the above-mentioned porters through Superintendent E. J. O'Neil of the New Orleans District, in which claims the Organization maintained that the Agreement between The Pullman Company and its Porters, Attendants, Maids and Bus Boys, represented by the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, was violated in connection with the operation of the above-mentioned employes out of the New Orleans District in that it deprived them of certain work to which they were entitled under the rules of the above-mentioned Agreement, particularly under Rule 43 (b).
And further, for the above-mentioned porters, employes of The Pullman Company to be paid such sums of money as was lost by them in the wages that they would have earned had not the Agreement been violated as set forth in said claims which were filed for and in behalf of the above-mentioned porters through Superintendent O'Neill of the New Orleans District.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Your Petitioner, the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, respectfully submits that it is duly authorized to represent all porters, attendants, maids and bus boys employed by The Pullman Company as it is provided for under the Railway Labor Act.
Your Petitioner further sets forth that it is duly authorized to represent E. L. Stanley, J. Williams #5, L. Leonard, et al, for and in whose behalf these claims were filed with your Honorable Board, and as set forth in our Statement of Claim, said parties being now, and having been for some time past, employed by The Pullman Company as porters operating out of New Orleans, Louisiana.
the Organization's position is based upon an erroneous interpretation of Award 7142, which Award, when analyzed, supports the Company's position.
All data submitted herewith in support of the Company's position have heretofore been submitted in substance to the employes and their representatives and made a part of this dispute.
OPINION OF BOARD: In this case, as we held in Award 9687, Elkouri:
Moreover, the Organization emphasized that issue by a statement and also the filing of Exhibit E before the Board. In so doing it asserted that said exhibit had been filed in Docket PM-9648 (later covered by Award 9687) for a group of employes "who have filed claims identical with those filed in the instant case" and that the "principle" involved in all these claims is "identical".
As the record shows that the parties agree that the claims (except in name and amounts), principles and arguments are identical with those covered by Award 9687, this Board should follow its action at that time and dismiss the same.
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 has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and
LABOR MEMBERS DISSENT TO AWARDS 9841, 9842, 9843
DOCKETS PM-9740, PM-9741, PM-9742
CARRIER MEMBERS' REPLY TO LABOR MEMBER'S DISSENTS
TO AWARDS 9840, 9841, 9842 and 9843