NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
(Supplemental)
Preston J. Moore, Referee
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
AMERICAN TRAIN DISPATCHERS ASSOCIATION
THE LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD COMPANY
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
Claim of the American ,Train Dispatchers
Association that:
(a) The Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company, hereinafter
referred to
as "the Carrier" violated and continues to violate Article
1 of the effective agreement applicable to its train dispatchers employed on the Carrier's Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis District,
when it required and permitted employes not within the scope of
said agreement to perform service as Assistant Chief Train Dispatcher
at Carrier's Tilford Yard, Atlanta, Georgia, on October 29, 30 and 31,
1959, and subsequent dates.
(b) Carrier shall now compensate Extra Train Dispatcher D. H.
Carder for October 29 and 30, 1959, and Extra Train Dispatcher
C. M. Baldwin for October 31, 1959, one day's compensation for each
of said dates at pro rata rate of Assistant Chief Train Dispatcher,
and that the senior available Extra Train Dispatcher be likewise
compensated for each subsequent date until the said violation shall
cease.
(c) That in event no extra train dispatcher was available on
any such date, the senior regularly assigned train dispatcher be compensated for such violation on his regularly assigned rest days at
time and one-half rate.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS:
An Agreement between the
parties, effective April 1, 1945, as subsequently revised, is on file with your
Honorable Board and, by this reference, is made a part of this submission
as though fully set out herein.
Rules pertinent to this dispute are:
"ARTICLE 1
"(a) Scope.
The term 'train dispatcher,' as hereinafter used, shall include
night chief, assistant chief, trick, relief and extra dispatchers. It is
[8611
10720-2s ggg
Assuming, but not admitting, that the items included in the employes'
evidence, Carrier's Exhibits, constitute service restricted to night or assistant
chief dispatchers, some of the items are not of daily occurrence.
Carrier, therefore, submits the continuing portion of the claim is too
vague and indefinite and therefore improper.
With the exception of Exhibit G which is dated November 11, 1959, the
employes have produced no evidence in connection with their claim except
for October 29, 30, and 31, 1959.
Carrier submits the evident facts do not support the employes' claim
which is based on the contention that operators in "N" office and others not
covered by the dispatchers' agreement are performing service restricted to
night or assistant chief dispatchers.
The past practice, which has been followed for years, also is contrary to
the contention now made by the employes.
In view of these circumstances carrier submits there is no basis for the
employes' claim and same should, therefore, be denied.
Furthermore, the employes have submitted no evidence in support of
their claim other than for the dates of October 29, 30, and 31, 1959.
All matters referred to herein have been presented, in substance, by the
carrier to representatives of the employes, either in conference or correspondence.
(Exhibits not reproduced.)
OPINION OF BOARD:
This is a dispute between The American Train
Dispatchers Association and ,The Louisville and Nashville Railroad.
The employes contend that Carrier violated Article I of the Agreement.
"ARTICLE 1
"(a) Scope.
The term 'train dispatcher,' as hereinafter used, shall include
night chief, assistant chief, trick, relief and extra dispatchers. It is
agreed that one (1) chief dispatcher on each division shall be excepted from the provisions of this agreement."
"(b) Definitions.
10720-29
gg9
1. Night Chief Train Dispatcher
Assistant Chief Dispatcher
These classes shall include positions in which the duties of incumbents are to be responsible for the movement of trains on a division or other assigned territory involving the supervision of train
dispatchers and other similar employes; to supervise the handling
of trains and the distribution of power and equipment incident thereto;
and to perform related work."
"c" Where existing payroll classification does not conform to
Sections (a) and (b) of this Article, anyone performing service
specified therein shall be classified in accordance therewith."
The issue is whether the employes at Tilford Yard, Georgia are performing work that belongs to Petitioner under the Agreement.
The telegraph operators probably performed many functions under the
control of the Chief Dispatcher and many without specific direction. The chief
taggers certainly performed none of the duties and functions spelled out for
an Assistant Chief Dispatcher.
The Trainmaster, issued such orders as those appearing in the Record at
Page 30.
None of these employes are acting in a supervisory capacity. This requires
judgment or the making of decisions.
We have carefully studied all evidence submitted and cannot find sufficient evidence to warrant a finding that telegraph operators, chief taggers or
the Trainmaster at Tilford Yard are performing duties that are reserved
exclusively to Assistant Chief Dispatchers.
For the foregoing reasons, we believe there has been no violation of the
Agreement.
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.
16220-30
890
AWARD
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of THIRD DIVISION
ATTEST: S. H. Schulty
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 3rd day of August 1962.