"(a) The term 'Train Dispatchers' as hereinafter used and as defined in Section (b) of this article shall be understood to include Assistant Chief Dispatchers, Trick Dispatchers, Relief Dispatchers and Extra Dispatchers.

"(b) Assistant Chief Train Dispatcher: This class shall include positions in which it is the duty of incumbents 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.

Trick Train Dispatcher; Relief Train Dispatcher; Extra Train Dispatcher: These classes shall include positions in which it is the duty of incumbents to be primarily responsible for the movement of trains by train orders, or otherwise; to supervise forces employed in handling train orders; to keep necessary records incident thereto, and to perform related work.

"(c) Where payroll classification does not conform to the foregoing sections, anyone performing service specified therein shall be reclassified in accordance therewith."

POSITION INCUMBENT

All data in support of the Carrier's position in this case have been handled on the property.

OPINION OF BOARD: Effective October 16, 1957 the Carrier combined its Buffalo and Scranton Divisions, thereby reducing the number of divisions on the railroad from three to two. The newly combined division, called the Scranton-Buffalo Division, is headquartered at

Scranton, Pennsylvania. As a result of the consolidation, the excepted position of Chief Train Dispatcher and the positions of Assistant Chief Train Dispatcher and Relief Chief, Assistant Chief Train Dispatcher, were abolished at Buffalo. Concurrently, three new positions were established at Scranton with the title of Transportation Supervisor. The Buffalo office was placed under the jurisdiction of the Chief Dispatcher at Scranton.

Prior to the consolidation, the Dispatcher staff at Buffalo consisted of a Chief Dispatcher and Assistant Chief Train Dispatcher, a Relief Chief, Assistant Chief Train Dispatcher, three Trick Train Dispatchers and an Extra Dispatcher. As a result of the consolidation, the remaining positions in the Buffalo office were first, second and third Trick Train Dispatcher, one Relief Trick Train Dispatcher and one Extra Dispatcher.

The Employes concede the right of the Carrier to transfer the jurisdiction of the former Buffalo Division dispatching territory to the newly-created Scranton-Buffalo Division at Scranton, Pennsylvania, but claim that Article 1 of the Agreement-The Scope Rule-was violated because the Trick Train Dispatchers at Buffalo, after the consolidation, were required to perform supervisory duties which had been the responsibility of the Chief and Assistant Chief Train Dispatcher, and that such additional responsibility required a reclassification of such employes under Rule 1(c).

The Employes assert that immediately upon abolishment of the positions in question the Trick Train Dispatchers were left without supervision and had to assume responsibility for supervising their own train dispatching, the handling of trains, the distribution of power and equipment incident thereto and to perform related work -all which comes within the scope of Assistant Chief Train Dispatcher, as provided for in Article 1(b) of the Agreement. Further, they cite five specific bulletined instructions issued by management, which Employes contend involved responsibilities formerly exercised exclusively by the Chief and Assistant Chief Train Dispatchers. These instructions covered issuance of passes in the event of emergency; reports on crippled cars; enforcement of an agreement with respect to layoff by certain conductors; distribution of morning reports by registered mail; and, instructions for the handling of accident reports. Moreover, the Employes maintain they were required to assume other important duties and responsibilities coming within the scope of Assistant Chief Train Dispatchers such as arranging for detours and providing pilots over foreign roads in case of accident. In this connection, the Employes cite a specific derailment and detour where Trick Dispatchers acted without supervision from the Scranton office. Other duties not previously performed, included: contact with railroads with respect to interchange of traffic; contact with the shipping and travelling public with respect to train arrivals, departures and connections; contact with various division officers with respect to operations in general, all of which, the Employes maintain, are supervisory duties and responsibilities previously performed exclusively by the Chief

and Assistant Chief Train Dispatchers at Buffalo. The Employes insist that none of these additional duties were "related work" within the meaning of that term in Article 1 of the Agreement. They contend, accordingly, that since October 16, 1957 the positions of Trick Train Dispatchers have been a combination of Assistant Chief Train Dispatcher and Trick Train Dispatcher.

While it is permissible, the Employes contend, under the rules for an employe in a higher rated position, such as Chief Dispatcher, to perform some of the duties of a lower-rated position, such as Trick Dispatcher, it is not permissible under Article 1 (c) to apply the lower

rated classification to a position which includes the duties and responsibilities of a higher-rated position. Therefore, in the view of the Employes, the determination of this dispute turns squarely on the question of whether or not the claimants are performing the duties of Assistant Chief Train Dispatchers as defined in Article 1(b) of the Agreement.

The Carrier contends that the consolidation of the Buffalo and Scranton Divisions was accomplished in accordance with the Agreement; that the Employes have conceded as much; and, accordingly, that the Trick Train Dispatchers at Buffalo reported to and were supervised by the Assistant Chief and Chief Dispatchers at Scranton. The Carrier notes that the supervision and distribution of power was placed in the Scranton office where there is a round-the-clock dispatcher service and contends that the other work cited by the Employes is work historically performed by Trick Dispatchers, some of which was done under direct supervision at Buffalo before the consolidation. Further, the Carrier contends that work done by Trick Train Dispatchers at Buffalo after the consolidation is similar to work done at other stations on the railroad where supervision is at distant offices. All of the work, such as issuing emergency passes, preparing lists of crippled cars, or sending accident or morning reports is clerical and is work "related" to Trick Dispatchers' responsibilities. The Carrier classifies the Trick Train Dispatchers' responsibility in arranging for detours after derailment as "being more or less perfunctory and taking much less effort than it takes to issue a train order." Further, the Carrier maintains that Trick Train Dispatchers are authorized to arrange detours and do so at the direction of a supervisor. With respect to supervision from distant offices, the Carrier notes that Train Dispatchers at Bangor, Pennsylvania and Binghamton, New York, have performed their work for years under supervision from offices at Hoboken and/or Scranton. Since the scope rule is applicable to all dispatching offices on the property and the practice of supervision from a distant office is not new on this property, the Carrier concludes it is not in violation of the Agreement.

The principal issue in this dispute is whether the work of the supervisory Train Dispatchers actually disappeared at Buffalo after the consolidation.

There is no question about the authority of the Carrier to supervise the Train Dispatchers at Buffalo from the Scranton office. As at other places on the property, supervision may be exercised at one central point leaving Trick Train Dispatchers to perform the duties contractually and historically assigned to them. The Carrier's argument that such supervision was actually transferred from Buffalo to Scranton is not borne out of the facts, however. It is clear from the instructions given to

the Dispatchers in Buffalo by Carrier management, including the Division Superintendent, that some of the supervisory duties previously performed in the Buffalo office were transferred to the Trick Train Dispatchers in that office. Carrier does not deny that the work which the Employes complain about was not transferred to them. Carrier merely asserts that such work was historically performed by Trick Train Dispatchers and, therefore, was related to their work, as covered in the Scope Rule.

It was the Carrier's privilege to consolidate dispatching divisions and supervise Trick Train Dispatchers from a centrally-located office, but it was not the Carrier's privilege to realize the savings incident to such consolidation by distributing some of the remaining supervisory work among Employes retained as Trick Train Dispatchers. The abolishment of some positions at Buffalo and the demotion of the remaining Dispatchers should not be further aggravated by an increase in the amount and degree of responsibility for the remaining work, unless clearly supported by the Agreement. The definition of "related work" and the practice with respect thereto do not provide such support. Therefore, the basic claim of the Employes should be sustained.

Since Employes agree that the Carrier was authorized to consolidate as it did, it can be assumed that Employes also agree that jobs at Buffalo could be abolished. Given this predicate, there is no reason to make financially whole those Dispatchers at the lower end of the seniority roster who were adversely affected by the consolidation. Accordingly, the claim in item (c) should be denied.

As to those Dispatchers who assumed some supervisory responsibilities after the consolidation, only bizarre results would flow from a decision to reclassify all Trick Train Dispatcher positions at Buffalo as Assistant Chief Train Dispatchers, as requested by the Employes. Under such a situation-to adopt an old cliche-there would be all chiefs and no indians. Further, it is obvious that despite leaving behind some of the supervisory chores at Buffalo, the major responsibility for and general supervision of Dispatchers in Buffalo is assumed in the Scranton office. And besides, after the consolidation, such supervision was provided round the clock, rather than for 16 hours only, as before.

The violation to be corrected and compensated for is the assumption of some supervisory duties by Dispatchers in Buffalo. Even the Employes acknowledge that, at worst, the Buffalo Dispatchers were performing combined trick and supervisory responsibilities. For this, such Dispatchers should be paid at the higher rate in accordance with the intent of Article 1(c) of the Agreement. This compensation should be paid absolutely from the date of the consolidation to the date of the claim and conditionally thereafter, in view of the Employes' recognition of what is, in effect, a partial violation. If such violation continued after the date of claim filed with this Board and is not corrected pursuant to this opinion and order then Carrier should compensate the designated Dispatchers for so long as the violation continues.

Item (a) -This claim should be sustained to the extent that the Carrier transferred a part of the duties and responsibilities of the Assistant Chief Train Dispatcher to the Trick Train Dispatchers at Buffalo in violation of the Agreement;

Item (b) -This claim should be sustained to the extent that the named Dispatchers, or their successors, shall be conpensated for the difference in rate between Trick Train Dispatchers and Assistant Chief Train Dispatchers from October 16, 1957 through April 16, 1959, the date of the claim; and, thereafter for so long as the violation in Item (a) continues but only if, within 30 days of the date of this award, Carrier does not correct such violation.

Item (d) - Claim should be sustained only to the extent the General Chairman of the American Train Dispatchers Association shall be authorized to verify the Carrier's computations on the difference between the rate-of-pay of Trick Train Dispatchers and Assistant Chief Train Dispatchers during the times in issue.

FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, 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

AWARD