NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
(Supplemental)
Martin I. Rose, Referee
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
AMERICAN TRAIN DISPATCHERS ASSOCIATION
MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the
American Train Dispatchers
Association that:
(a) The Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, hereinafter referred
to as "the Carrier", violated the currently effective Agreement between
the parties, Article 3(b) specifically, when it declined and continues to
decline to regularly assign a relief train dispatcher and compensate
him in accordance with the provisions of Article 3(b) in its train dispatching office at Osawatomie, Kansas, where relief requirements regularly necessitate four (4) days' relief service per week.
(b) The Carrier shall now compensate Mr. F. J. Howell one day's
compensation at the rate applicable to trick train dispatcher for January 10, 1961; and compensate Mr. A. P. Hoyt one day's compensation
at the rate applicable to trick train dispatcher for each of the following dates: January 17 and January 24, 1961; compensate Mr. R. A.
Talbott one day's compensation at the rate applicable to trick train
dispatcher for each of the following dates: January 31, February 14,
February 28 and March 7, 1961, and compensate Mr. R. D. Harbour
one day's compensation at the rate applicable to trick train dispatcher
for February 21, 1961, on which dates they were deprived of work to
which they were contractually entitled under the Agreement.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: There is in effect an agreement between the parties to this dispute effective August 1, 1945, reprinted
March 1, 1955 and subsequently amended. A copy of this agreement and subsequent amendments are on file with your Honorable Board and by this reference are made a part of this submission as though they were fully set out
herein.
The agreement rules particularly pertinent to this dispute are quoted here
for ready reference.
"Article 1
"(a) Scope
I 11
11421-24
to custom, practice and other indicia of their understanding, is the
decisive factor.
x x x
"The fact, if it is a fact, as the Organization charges, that it did
not know of the custom and practice in question affords no sound
ground for a contrary conclusion."
Award No. 7955-Referee Cluster.
"The basic issue is whether it can be said that the scope rule,
which does not describe any work but merely lists positions, was intended to cover the kind of work here involved. In order to determine
this; it is necessary to look to custom and practice."
We respectfully submit that it has never been the practice on this Carrier
to include the filling of temporary vacancies on positions of Chief Train Dispatcher in rest day relief service subject to Article 3(b), whether such temporary vacancies occurred on the day the Chief Train Dispatcher was required to
take one regularly assigned day off per week, or not. Neither has it been the
practice to include the filling of temporary vacancies on positions of dispatchers
covered by the Dispatchers' Agreement in rest day relief subject to Article
3(b), whether such temporary vacancies occurred on the day a trick dispatcher
was taken from his regularly assigned position to work on a position of Chief
Train Dispatcher because the Chief Train Dispatcher had been required to take
one of his regularly assigned days off, or otherwise.
Accordingly, no support for the "Johnny-Come-lately" position of the Organization can be found in the recognized practice on this property long known
to both parties to the instant dispute.
For the reasons fully set forth in this submission, there is no basis for the
instant claim, and it must therefore be denied.
All matters contained herein have been the subject of discussion in conference or through correspondence between the parties hereto on the property.
(Exhibits not reproduced.)
OPINION OF BOARD:
The parties agreed at the Referee Hearing that
the issue presented for determination by this claim is the same as the issue
raised in Award 11407. Consequently, and for the reasons stated in that award,
this claim must also be denied.
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.
11421-2s
25
AWARD
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of THIRD DIVISION
ATTEST: S. H. Schulty
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 22nd day of May 1963.