NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
(Supplemental)
(a) The Pennsylvania Railroad Company, hereinafter referred to as "the Carrier" violated the Scope and Definitions of Part II of the Schedule Agreement between the parties, effective June 1, 1960, when from September 1, 1960 until September 11, 1960, the Carrier permitted and/or required duties of Movement Directors to be performed by employes and/or supervisory officers not within the Scope of the Agreement.
(b) Carrier shall now compensate Claimant H. B. Johnson, the senior available Extra Movement Director, one day's pay at Movement Director rate for the following dates: September 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10th, 1960, all of which dates Claimant Johnson was available and could have been used at pro rata rate if the Schedule Agreement had been properly applied. (S.D. 46)
"The provisions set forth in Part 11 of this Agreement shall constitute an Agreement between the Pennsylvania Railroad Company and its Movement Directors represented by the American Train Dispatchers Association, and shall govern the hours of service, working conditions and rates of pay of the respective positions and employes classified herein.
Therefore, even if it were to be considered that Claimant was entitled to be called to perform the work involved, he would be entitled to no more than three pro rata hours pay therefore.
It is respectfully submitted that the National Railroad Adjustment Board, Third Division, is required by the Railway Labor Act, to give effect to the said Agreement and to decide the present dispute in accordance therewith.
The Railway Labor Act, in Section 3, First, Subsection (i), confers upon the National Railroad Adjustment Board the power to hear and determine disputes growing out of "grievances or out of the interpretation or application of agreements concerning rates of pay, rules or working conditions." The National Railroad Adjustment Board is empowered only to decide the said dispute in accordance with the Agreement between the parties to it. To grant the claim of the Employes in this case would require the Board to disregard the Agreement between the parties thereto and impose upon the Carrier conditions of employment, and obligations with reference thereto not agreed upon by the parties to this dispute. The Board has no jurisdiction or authority to take any such action.
It has been shown that no work is being performed by employes other than Movement Directors to which Movement Directors have established an exclusive right; that the Scope and Definitions of the Rules Agreement were not violated; and, that the Claimant is not entitled to the compensation claimed.
Therefore, the Carrier respectfully submits that your Honorable Board should deny the claim of the Employes in this matter.
The Carrier demands strict proof by competent evidence of all facts relied upon by the Employes, with the right to test the same by crossexamination, the right to produce competent evidence in its own behalf at a proper trial of this matter and the establishment of a record of all of the same.
All data contained herein have been presented to the employe involved or to his duly authorized representative.
OPINION OF BOARD: The record establishes that the work in dispute has been customarily and traditionally performed by the Movement Director. The record also supports the contention of the Employes that Carrier's attack on paragraph (b) of the claim was not made on the property. Our policy or rule in such a situation is well settled.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds: 11432-18 285