STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of Joint Council Dining Car Employes Union, Local 495 on the property of the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company for and on behalf of William Carrington, James Carter, James Hill and all other employes similarly situated for Chef Cook's rate of pay while performing duties of Chef Cook as one employe in the kitchen, Diners 964. 969 and 972 on Trains 47 and 46, Charleston, West Virginia to Detroit, Michigan.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Under date of November 13, 1957, Organization filed the instant claim with Carrier's Superintendent Dining Section (Employes' Exhibit A). Under date of December 16, 1957, Carrier's Superintendent Dining Service Section declined the claim (Employes' Exhibit R).
On December 23, 1957, Organization appealed denial of the instant claim to Carrier's Assistant Vice President Labor Relations, the highest designated officer on the property to consider such appeals. After appeal conference held February 7, 1958, Carrier's Assistant Vice President Labor Relations declined the claim on appeal on March 19, 1958 (Employes' Exhibit C).
The facts in the instant case are very uncomplicated. On October 22, 1957, Carrier issued bulletin (Employes' Exhibit D) instructing position of pantryman on the diners mentioned above to "build fire in kitchen stove placing large stainless steel coffee pot full of water on stove" and "make coffee after water is boiling by using (1) bag of coffee to (1) gallon of water, filling coffee urn by using (2) bags of coffee and (2) gallons of boiling hot water permitting coffee to drain through coffee bag into urn. Drain off coffee through urn spigot, repouring same into coffee bag over coffee grounds one additional time. Remove coffee bag and grounds from urn rinsing same in clear cold water in preparation for next use."
It is obvious that the instructions contained in the bulletin attached hereto as Employes' Exhibit D over the signature of Carrier's Superintendent Dining Service Section required pantryman to perform duties in the kitchens of the diners involved in the instant claim.
POSITION OF EMPLOYES: The current agreement between the parties, effective April 16, 1938, as revised, copy of which is on file with the Board, is
It is the Carrier's position that Rule 3 of the Dining Car Employes' Agreement quoted above was not violated for the reason that there were no employes performing the service as chef cook and that making coffee is not exclusively the work of a cook, therefore, the claim of the employes should be denied.
The evidence introduced in this submission has been previously discussed in conference, or by correspondence, with the representative of the employes.
OPINION OF BOARD: The dining crew on trains 46 and 47 consisted of a steward, chef cook, waiter and pantryman. Effective October 27, 1957 the chef cook and waiter were instructed to leave train 47 at Charleston, West Virginia. They remained there until train 46 arrived the following day. The full dining car crew served lunch and dinner on train 47 and breakfast and lunch on train 46. .The steward and pantryman remained on trains 46 and 47 and were provided with sleeping accommodations.
The steward and pantryman served breakfast on train 47 consisting of hot coffee, cold cereals and pastries. On train 46 which left Detroit at 7:30 P. M., the steward and pantryman served cold sandwiches, fruits, salads, cold beverages and hot coffee.
On October 22, 1957 Carrier's Superintendent of Dining Service issued the following written instructions to all stewards and waiters:
Claimants, who were pantrymen claim they should be paid chef cook's rate because they performed kitchen duties. Rule 3 of the Agreement reads:
It is the Employes' contention that Claimants were kitchen employes who were instructed to build a fire in the kitchen stove, make coffee and do other chores as described in the instructions of October 22, 1957. The Carrier has argued that making coffee is not such kitchen work contemplated in Rule 3 and the pantrymen should not be considered a one-man kitchen crew.
Employes rely heavily on the findings of this Board in Award 7869 (Smith). The Agreement involved in this Award contained a Rule similar to Rule 3 of the Agreement involved in the present dispute. In the former case, however, the Claimant was regularly assigned as a Second Cook. He claimed Chef's wages because he was the only employe in the kitchen. In that Award we said:
Here, the Claimants were not cooks of any grade, they were not in the cooks class contemplated in Rule 3. The Agreement covers:
'The dispute here is not similar to the dispute in Award 7869 because Pantrymen were not involved.
Did the Claimants as Pantrymen perform work of Cooks which would bring them within the meaning of Rule 3? We think not. The Scope Rule does not describe the duties of the employes in each of the classifications previously noted. We know only that Claimants made coffee. So do Waiters-in-Charge in some instances.
In Award 5354 a Waiter-in-Charge prepared and served sandwiches, coffee and other foods in a buffet-lounge car. The claim was for reimbursement to Coach Cafe Cooks who were displaced by Waiters-in-Charge. We .denied the claims, without a Referee, and said:
In Award 5307 (Robertson) we denied a claim on behalf of cooks who were displaced by waiters-in-charge. The latter served "sandwiches, prepared, packaged canned foods and bacon or ham and eggs." They also served drinks which, we must assume, included coffee. Since there were no cooks on board, the waiter-in-charge must have prepared the coffee. See also Awards 5308, 5309 and 5310 (Robertson) and Awards 8828 (Bakke) and 8885 (McMahon). The preparation of coffee is not exclusively the work of employes in the cooks classification.
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: 11125-7 344