NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
(Supplemental)
Preston J. Moore, Referee
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY AND STEAMSHIP CLERKS,
FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS AND STATION EMPLOYES
THE CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO RAILWAY COMPANY
(Cbesapeake District)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
Claim of the System Committee of the
Brotherhood that:
(a) The Carrier violated and continues to violate the terms of
the Clerical Agreement by failing and refusing to properly classify,
rate, bulletin and assign positions performing certain work in the
Office of Auditor of Revenues, General Office District, Richmond,
Virginia, in connection with the computerization of work requiring
instead Messrs. K. Crumpton, E. P. Landrum, V. C. Wright, M. R.
Sale, P. T. Woods, G. R. Creekmur, T. N. Woodfin and A. J.
Eastman, who are regularly assigned Recheck Rate and Division
Clerks, to leave their regular assignments and perform the work in
question; and
(b) That the necessary positions shall now be classified, rated,
advertised and assigned in accordance with applicable rules of the
Agreement; and
(c) That Messrs. Crumpton, Landrum, Wright, Sale, Woods,
Creekmur, Woodfin and Eastman, including also their substitutes
and/or successors, be compensated an additional pro rata day's pay
based on the rate applicable to such work but in no case less that the
rate of the positions to which they are rightly assigned under the
Agreement, retroactive sixty (60) days from the date of this claim
and to continue until the violation is corrected.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS:
1. Each freight shipment by
common rail carrier is accompanied during carriage by a document known
in the industry as a "waybill." The waybill is a printed standardized form
which is filled in at the origin station to show origin, date, car ownership
and number, waybill number, description of property covered, consignor and
[1327
10980-26
157
Secondary Considerations
The Board may notice that different people are named in the three
claims filed in this dispute down through its development, despite the fact
that only eight are named in the instant case.
This is explained by the fact that the claims were submitted at different
times, and the claim as presented at the particular time showed the persons
occupying the positions covered by the particular claim at the particular
time.
CONCLUSIONS
The Carrier has shown that it proceeded fully in accordance with all
applicable agreement rules in the performance of the work of making the
master reference cards for computerization of certain freight revenue accounting in that:
1. Such work was performed by the class of employes which had
performed the preponderant part of the nearest similar work
(of similar kind or class) in the past.
2. Such work was performed by the higher rated employes, and
there was no reduction of rates in any instance.
3. Such work was performed as far as possible during regular
straight time work hours. Where not possible to do the work
during straight time work hours and it was necessary to work
overtime, all qualified employes in the section were worked
overtime, and the overtime paid for at punitive rates.
4. The Carrier and the Employes by duly negotiated agreement
have assigned similar work of making what master cards will be
needed from time to time in the future to Recheck Rate and
Division Clerks just as the work was assigned during the period
of this claim.
5. It was neither practicable nor required by any rule or provision of supplemental agreement that additional positions be
established to do the work in question.
6. The agreement has not been violated, and the claim should be
denied in its entirety.
All data contained in this submission have been discussed in conference
or by correspondence with the Employe representatives.
(Exhibits not reproduced.)
OPINION OF BOARD:
This is a dispute between The Brotherhood of
Railway and Steamship Clerks and The Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company.
Under date of July 29, 1954, the parties entered into an Agreement
to outline the work procedures and method to use in the realignment and/or
10980-27
158
elimination of certain work within the offices of Auditor of Revenues and
the Auditor of Statistics.
Part of this work involved compiling Master Reference Cards. The
Organization contends that Section 43 of the Agreement gave the work to
Rate and Division Clerks.
"43. Division Clerks (A. of R.) will apply divisions to abstracts manually and prepare a Master Reference Card for each
movement that can be mechanized. The divisions on the abstract
will be extended by the Calculator Clerks (A. of R.).
There are two types of Division Clerks (i.e.) Rate and Division and
Recheck Rate and Division Clerks. The Carrier assigned the preparation
of the Master Reference Cards to the Recheck Rate and Division Clerks.
When overtime became necessary, the Carrier assigned the overtime
work to both.
We cannot insert the word "Rate" before the word Division in the
Agreement. Consequently, we find that the Agreement authorized the Carrier to use Recheck Rate and Division Clerks for this work.
There may well be some questions as to jurisdiction but we have considered the merits in order to settle the dispute.
For the foregoing reasons we find the Agreement was not violated.
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.
AWARD
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of THIRD DIVISION
ATTEST: S. H. Schulty
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 18th day of December 1962.