STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of Joint Council Dining Car Employes' Union Local 516 on the property of Great Northern Railway Company
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: On February 28, 1958, Organization submitted the instant claims to Carrier (Employes Exhibit A). Carrier's General Superintendent Dining Car Department denied the claims on March 11, 1958. (Employes Exhibit B.)
The claims were then appealed to Carrier's Vice President, the highest designated officer on the property to consider such appeal, on March 24, 1958, (Employes Exhibit C). On April 22, 1958, Organization again requested decision on appeal (Employes Exhibit D). Not until September 16, 1958, five months and twenty-three days after appeal was lodged with the appeal officer, was it denied by the official (Employes Exhibit E).
The facts in the instant claims are not in dispute. The facts as bearing on the issue of whether Carrier can make assignment of 30 or 31 calendar days with no relief days for Porters-in-Charge Trains 20 and 19, St. Paul to Duluth and return without violating letter agreement on the property, are:
3. There is no rule in the controlling Agreement, nor is there any memorandum of agreement or letter of understanding between Carrier and the Organization whereby Carrier was, or is, required to provide layover days for porter-in-charge assignments.
4. Carrier was not required to confer or negotiate with the Organization prior to establishing new porter-in-charge assignments.
5. It has been a generally recognized principle and so held by all Divisions of the Adjustment Board that Carrier is free to adjust its service to meet the needs of the public and to effect practical economies in the absence of any contractual limitation thereon. No such restriction appears in the controlling and applicable Agreement.
For the foregoing reasons, the Carrier respectfully requests that the claim be denied.
OPINION OF BOARD: The facts in this case are simple. The Carrier rebulletined 2 positions in 1958 in regard to porter-in-charge assignments. The Organization claims that the rebulletining constitutes a violation of an alleged letter agreement entered into between the parties in 1952. These alleged letter agreements read as follows:
Referring to your letter of January 10 relative to complaint pertaining to the manning of parlor car run on 19 and 20:
This matter was discussed with you and Mr. Hall by Messrs. Deleen and Macdonnell on Tuesday, January 22, in Mr. Deleen's office, at which time it was agreed to increase the number of porters-incharge by one or from three to a total of four, which would materially increase the layover at headquarters and it is our understanding that you agreed that this would satisfactorily dispose of the matter and that our file might be closed thereon.
Will you please advise if my understanding relative thereto is correct.
While in the judgment of this Referee the letter agreement constitutes a valid amendment of the Collective Bargaining Agreement between these parties, however, the letter agreement does not support the claim as presented and therefore must be denied.
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:
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