STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of The Order of Railroad Telegraphers on the Norfolk and Western Railway that:
1. Carrier violates the agreement between the parties when on each Saturday and Sunday, beginning May 22, 1954, it abolished the regularly assigned rest day relief positions on the First and Third shift Hagerstown District dispatcher's positions and combined the work of these positions with that of the First and Third Winston District dispatcher's positions; and, abolished the regularly assigned rest day relief position on the Second Shift Winston District dispatcher's position and combined the work of this position with that of the Second Shift Hagerstown District dispatcher's position.
2. Commencing on September 21, 1955 and continuing thereafter until corrected on each day of the violation Carrier shall:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: The agreements between the parties are available to your Board and by this reference are made a part hereof.
On the Shenandoah Division of the Carrier, headquarters Roanoke, Virginia, positions established to perform dispatchers' work are:
position must be filled, attention is also invited to Third Division Awards 5545, 5547, 6232, 6602, 6947, 6948, 7073 and 7189.
The specific question of a Carrier using one dispatcher to cover two districts to perform all dispatcher work from 8:00 A. M. on Saturdays to 11:59 P. M. on Sundays during which time the work was light, and using two dispatchers to cover the two districts at other times, was before your Board in Docket No. TD-6592. The Third Division in Award 6839 thereon cited their Awards 6184 and 6602, referred to by the Carrier in the instant case, and stated:
The Carrier asserts that as the dispatchers involved in the instant case are of the same class, perform the same type of work, receive the same rate of pay and are carried on the same seniority roster, it was proper under the Forty Hour Week rules it cites, as interpreted by your Board, to assign the dispatchers on a staggered basis to cover the seven-day operation. The Carrier further asserts that the abolishment of an assigned relief position and the use of one dispatcher to perform all dispatcher work on each trick on Saturdays and Sundays was not a violation of the Agreement as alleged by the Employes.
It is the position of the Carrier the Employes' claim is not supported by any schedule rule, therefore, denial of the claim is respectfully requested.
OPINION OF BOARD: This claim is identical to the claim in Award 10622. It involves the same parties and issues as submitted.
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
Assuming without conceding that all of the so-called 40-hour week provisions of the somewhat obscure agreement involved in these two dockets actually apply to train dispatchers these awards merely compound earlier errors.
These errors arise mainly from the misconceptions that the right to stagger work weeks was something new which was given to the carriers along with the obligation to grant a shorter work week, and that staggered work weeks somehow permit the combining of the work of separate and distinct positions in order to avoid one of the main purposes of the shorter work week: The spreading and maintaining of employment.
For these reasons and those more fully set out in my dissents to Awards 9119, 9574 and 9575, 1 cannot agree with the present awards and must, therefore, dissent.