PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY AND STEAMSHIP CLERKS,
FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS AND STATION EMPLOYES

CHICAGO AND ILLINOIS MIDLAND RAILWAY COMPANY

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:




EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: In July 1955 the timekeeping positions located in various offices were as follows:












11620-17 56 7





















11620-18 568









The Brotherhood here seeks to penalize the carrier for eliminating a lower-rated position and assigning the remaining duties thereof to higherrated positions when the amount of work in a six-man timekeeping and payroll bureau decreased by over 20 per cent. The claimants have been properly compensated for the work here involved in accordance with the rules. agreement and long established practices on this property.




All data in support of the carrier's position in connection with claims. has been presented to the duly authorized representative of the employes and is made a part of the particular question in dispute.




OPINION OF BOARD: The essential issue under the facts of record here is whether some of the higher-rated work of the position of Transportation Timekeeper was required to be performed by occupants (Claimants) of lowerrated positions, i.e., Shop Timekeeper and Maintenance of Way Timekeeper? If so, Claimants should have been compensated at the higher rate as claimed_ under Rule 56.


Thus the case turns on a question of fact: When the position of General Clerk Typist was abolished on January 8, 1958, did all the work of posting, figuring and extending Enginemen's time rolls "flow back" to the position of Transportation Timekeeper from that date until January 20, 1958, when Claimants were used to figure and extend those time rolls?


Other than a mere assertion by Petitioner, denied by Carrier, there is no. evidence in this record that the Transportation Timekeeper did, in fact, perform the work of figuring and extending Enginemen's time rolls from January 8 to January 20, 1958. Petitioner must establish this key fact by competent evidence in order to support its allegation that "all the work pertaining to Timeroll 29 (Enginemen) flowed back to . . the Transportation Timekeeper position and was performed exclusively by him from January 8, 1958 until January 20, 1958 when Claimants . . . were utilized to figure and extend timeroll 29 (Enginemen) . . ." (Emphasis ours.)


Having failed to make a conclusive showing on this determinative question of fact, Petitioner's allegation that Claimants performed work belonging to the higher-rated position cannot be sustained, nor can it be held that Rule 56 of the Agreement was violated. Accordingly, the claim must be denied.


FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:

11620-19 569



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





    Claim denied.


              NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

              By Order of THIRD DIVISION


              ATTEST: S. H. Schulty

              Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 19th day of July 1963.