THIRD DIVISION

(Supplemental)




PARTIES TO DISPUTE:



STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the American Train Dispatchers Association that:




EMYLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: There is in effect an Agreement between the Pennsylvania Railroad Company and Train Dispatchers, Movement Directors, Power Directors, Assistant Power Directors and Load Dispatchers, employes of the Pennsylvania Railroad Company represented by the American Train Dispatchers Association. Part If of said agreement contains provisions governing Movement Directors and became effective August 1. 1943. except as otherwise designated. A copy of this Agreement is on file with your Honorable Board and is, by this reference, made a part of this submission as though fully incorporated herein. There are also two other Agreements between the parties, one dated October 27, 1955, and one dated March 6, 1956, that are pertinent to this case and copies of these agreements are attached hereto as Employes' Exhibits TD-1 and TD-2.


For ready reference and convenience of the Board, the Regulations of the Schedule Agreement most pertinent to this dispute are found in Part II of the Agreement and quoted as follows:



10542-19 444

of agreements concerning rates of pay, rules or working conditions." The National Railroad Adjustment Board is empowered only to decide the said dispute in accordance with the Agreements between the parties to it. To grant the claim of the Employes in this case would require the Board to disregard the Agreements between the parties thereto and impose upon the Carrier conditions of employment, and obligations with reference thereto, not agreed upon by the parties to this dispute. The Board has no jurisdiction or authority to take any such action.










It is, therefore, respectfully submitted that the claim here before your Honorable Board is not supported by the facts or by the terms of the various Agreements with employes represented by the American Train Dispatchers Association and should be denied.


The Carrier demands strict proof by competent evidence of all facts relied upon by the Claimant, with the right to test the same by cross-examination, the right to produce competent evidence in its own behalf at a proper trial of this matter and the establishment of a record of all of the same.


All data contained herein have been presented to the employe involved or to his duly authorized representative.




OPINION OF BOARD: This claim resulted from the Carrier consolidating its operating territory from 19 Divisions to 9 operating Regions. The respective parties herein agreed to consolidation, the pertinent part of the Agreement of October 27, 1955 is as follows:


"3 (b) Train Dispatchers and Movement Directors holding seniority in the seniority districts listed in column (1) below will be afforded an option, on a basis to be further agreed upon, of selecting one of the Regions indicated in column (2) as the Region in which they desire to establish their seniority; after such selections are made, upon the basis agreed upon, they will accrue seniority with seniority dates as existed in their original seniority district.

10542-20 445
 "column (1) column (z)







"(c) So long as positions of Train Dispatchers or Movement Directors, as the case may be, are continued in existence at the points where located just prior to November 1, 1955, their seniority will be considered as confined to their original seniority district and they shall not be permitted to exercise seniority to positions in the extended portions of their respective regions."

 Because of certain situations that arose in the execution of the aforesaid Agreement, a Supplemental Agreement dated March 6, 1950 was executed and it reads as follows:





10542-21 446



"I. Movement Directors will be afforded an option of selecting the Region in which they desire to establish their seniority on the basis of the following:



"3. Details with respect to the manner in which the options provided for herein may be filed and exercised, together with the procedure to be followed in advertising and filling positions which will be transferred from certain of the former Divisions referred to herein to the Regions specified in this Agreement, will be agreed upon by the appropriate representatives of the American Train Dispatchers Associztion with the Superintendents of Personnel of the Regions affected.
 10542-22 447










The Pittsburgh Region was comprised of five former Divisions, one of which was the former Conemaugh Division on which Claimant held seniority since July 1, 1952.
 10542-23 448

The Claimant at the time dispute arose was working as a temporary Movement Director and he held this position until January 6, 1957. In the instant case Claimant had seniority No. 40 on the Pittsburgh Region, the dovetailing of seniority and the exercise thereof became effective in March and April 1956. A certain Mr. White held seniority Roster No. 37 on the Pittsburgh roster. The Carrier in December, 1956, changed the rest days of certain Movement Directors positions on the new Pittsburgh Region.


Pursuant to this change in rest days, Mr. White based upon his seniority, selected permanent position Movement Director No. 3 and temporary position Movement Director No. 7. This double displacement is permitted by the rules.


At the time, Claimant held position No. 7 which White sought to displace. The Claimant then bid for the position vacated by Mr. White, position No. 4, and it was awarded to him on January 6, 1957, the day prior to being officially displaced by Mr. White from position No. 7.


The Claimant avers that he should be restored whole because of the afore-mentioned changes as provided in paragraph 6 (a) of the March 6 Agreement.


In order to determine the issues presented by the Claimant we must con sider the March 6, 1956 Agreement in its entirety.


A careful examination of the March 6, 1956 Agreement does not support the Claimants position. The terms of this Agreement concerns itself with the selection of seniority districts, the transferring of offices or positions to different seniority district, and other parts of the Agreement relates to the expenses incurred in the moving or transferring of positions and the compensation that would be paid if such occurred. Neither event occurred.


Further, if we were to assume that the Claimant was displaced, such displacement was not the result of any condition expressed in the March 6, 1956 Agreement, but was the result of the change in rest days, and the Claimant voluntarily bidding for the position that he sought The senior Employe exec cised his seniority rights under Rule 3-F-2, Item 7 of the Master Agreement.


In conclusion, from the foregoing, we must state that the March 6, 1956 Agreement must be read in its entire context, and the provisions relied upon by the Claimant did not contemplate the factual situation existing here. We cannot read into the March 6, 1956 Agreement something that is not there.


FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:


That the parties waived oral hearing;

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


That the Agreement was not violated.
 16542-24 449

    Claim denied.


              NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD By Order of THIRD DIVISION


              ATTEST: S. H. Schulty

              Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois this 25th day of April 1962.