NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
Levi M. Hall, Referee
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY AND STEAMSHIP CLERKS,
FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS AND STATION EMPLOYES
WABASH RAILROAD COMPANY
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
(1) Carrier violated the schedule for clerks when on May 3,
1958 it abolished position of Bill Clerk at Milan, Michigan in the rearrangement of clerical work assigned certain duties heretofore handled exclusively by clerical workers to the Agent, a position without
the Scope rule of our agreement.
(2) That the clerical work be returned to the clerical workers
and until this is done S. E. Dennison, Car Clerk who was displaced
in the exercise of seniority rights by C. H. Heinzman and A. T. Hallock, who was displaced by Dennison be compensated for wage loss
sustained retroactive to May 3, 1958.
NOTE: The monetary wage loss of Dennison and Bullock to be
determined by joint check of payrolls and other necessary records.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Prior to May 3, 1958, the Station force at Milan, Michigan was as follows:
Rate
Position of Pay Occupant Hours Assigned Days Relief
Agent 7:00 A.M. 4:00 P.M.6
Cashier 17.24 0. R. Stoops 7:00 A.M. 4:00 P.M. 5 None
Car Clerk 17.08 S. E. Dennison 6:00 A.M. 3:00 P.M. 7 Sun. & Mon.
Bill Clerk 16.60 C. H. Heinzman 3:00 P.M. 12 mid. 7 Tues. & Wed.
In addition to the foregoing, there are three telegrapher-levermen providing around-the-clock service at the tower.
16961
11580-30
725
(Exhibits not reproduced.)
OPINION OF BOARD:
To arrive at a proper disposition in the instant
matter, it is necessary that we consider the following pertinent facts:
On June 4, 1958, the Superintendent received the following communication
addressed to him by the Local Chairman.
"Primrose Lodge No. 423
"Montpelier, Ohio, June 2, 1958
"Mr. F. C. Flynn, Superintendent,
Wabash Railroad Company,
Montpelier, Ohio
"Dear Sir:
"Referring to conference May 26, 1958 regarding the Agent at
Milan, Michigan performing clerical work.
"On May 2nd 1958 the position of Bill Clerk was abolished and
the hours of assignment of the Cashier and the Car Clerk were changed
to cover period from 6 A. M. to 12 Midnight, daily.
"The position of Agent at Milan is reported as an Exclusive Agent
and as such we understand his duties are not to include clerical work
coming under the Schedule for Clerks.
"On May 2nd 1958 the Agent at Milan issued a letter to the
Cashier and Car Clerk that he would perform certain clerical work that
had previously been performed by the clerical force prior to the abolishment of the Bill Clerk position. Clerical work being performed by
the Agent consists of the following: making interchange reports,
working local waybills, demurrage, releasing cars, working connections to and from the Ann Arbor, checking local industries, making
lists for local trains, etc.
"We respectfully request that the Agent at Milan be instructed
to discontinue performing work coming under the scope of the
Schedule for Clerks, and that the clerks affected by the abolishment
of the position of Bill Clerk be reimbursed for any monetary loss
subsequent to May 2nd 1958, as the work was not abolished but, as
stated above is being performed by the Agent. (Emphasis ours.)
"Please advise.
"Yours truly,
"/s/ W. J. Smith
Local Chairman."
There was a response to this letter by the Superintendent on July 24, 1958,
wherein he denies the requests of the Local Chairman.
On August 19, 1958, a communication was addressed to the Assistant General Manager by the General Chairman setting forth the alleged violation of
11580-a1
726
the Agreement by the Carrier and specifically naming certain individuals to be
reimbursed.
On September 14, 1958, and prior to the time that any answer had been
received by the Petitioner from the communication addressed to the Carrier on
August 19, 1958, the Petitioner served Carrier with a formal written notice in
compliance with Section 6 of the Railway Labor Act proposing changes in
Article V of the Agreement of August 21, 1954, including the following:
" * * * The presentation of the substance of the claim or grievance
shall be sufficient without identification of the employe or employes
involved, and every claim or grievance presented as required by this
paragraph shall be handled under this rule on behalf of all employes
adversely affected. * * * "
On September 18, 1958, a letter was written declining the claim of the
Petitioner, the Carrier contending that the first presentation of a claim in
behalf of named individuals or employes was on August 19, 1958, and was not
received within 60 days from the date of the occurrence of the event on which
the claim was based as required by Article V, Section 1 (a) of the Agreement
dated August 21, 1954. Carrier also denied the claim on the merits.
It is quite apparent from a reading of the first communication addressed
to the Carrier by the Petitioner, dated June 2, 1958, that it neither names the
employes on whose behalf the claim is made, nor can they be easily identified,
so as to bring it within the purview of Article V, Section 1 (a) of the 1954
Agreement which provides in part:
"(a) All claims or grievances must be presented in writing by
or on behalf of the employe involved to the officer of the carrier
authorized to receive the same . . ."
The letter was clearly designated as a request and did not refer to any
named individual. Prior to the General Chairman's letter of August 19, 1958,
more than one hundred days after the occurrence of the event out of which
the claim arose, no claim was submitted by or in behalf of any individual
employe.
Section 1 (a) of Article V does not permit the initiation or progression of
claims for unnamed individuals for unspecified dates.
The request on September 14, 1958, by the Petitioner for the change of
the Rule, as hereinbefore set forth, is an implied admission that the 1954
Agreement did not permit the practice requested in the change.
Under all the facts and circumstances of this case, we must conclude that
no valid claim was presented to the Carrier until August 19, 1958, more than
100 days after May 2, 1958, the date of the occurrence which gave rise to the
claim, and the claim not having been presented by the Petitioner in behalf of
the employe within 60 days from the date of the occurrence on which the claim
is based, the claim is barred and the Board is without jurisdiction to hear the
same.
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;
11580-32
727
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 does not have jurisdiction
over the dispute involved herein.
AWARD
Claim dismissed.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of THIRD DIVISION
ATTEST: S. H. Schulty
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day of June 1963.