NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
THE ORDER OF RAILROAD TELEGRAPHERS
ATLANTA AND WEST POINT RAILROAD COMPANY
THE WESTERN RAILWAY OF ALABAMA
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
Claim of the General Committee of The Order
of Railroad Telegraphers on the Atlanta and West Point-Western Railway of
Alabama, that:
(1) The Carrier violated the agreement between the parties
when on November 10, 1956 it required or permitted Conductor Burns
at Milstead, Alabama, to handle (receive, copy and deliver) Train
Order No. 25.
(2) The Carrier violated the agreement between the parties
when on November 28, 1956 it required or permitted Conductor of
Work Extra 118 at Palmetto to receive Train Order No. 2 at LaGrange.
(3) The Carrier shall, for each of the violations set forth
above, pay the senior idle telegrapher, extra in preference, a pro
rata day's pay at the minimum telegraphers' rate. The identification
of payee to be determined by a check of Carrier's records.
EMPLOYES' STATE31ENT OF FACTS:
On November 10, 1956 the
following train order was copied and made complete by Conductor Burns on
Train No. 6 at Mil stead, Alabama:
Form Form
19 19
ATLANTA AND WEST POINT RAIL ROAD COMPANY
THE WESTERN RAILWAY OF ALABAMA
TRAIN ORDER NO. 25
11-10 1956
TO C & E AT Milstead
No. 35 Eng 551 wait at Chehaw until 940 nine forty am
for No. 6 Eng 521
E.J.H.
[981]
11790-14
994
the personal judgment of the latter referee * " * should be
substituted for that of the former referee:
A contrary course would tend to discourage settlements between
the parties and discourage prompt compliance with Awards ren.
dered."
It will be noted in Petitioner's statement of claim they show no rule violation, merely making the broad allegation that the agreement was violated. In
initial handling on the property, the general chairman made claim as follows:
"On November 10, 1956 Conductor Burns, Train No. 6 copied train
order no 25 at Milstead, Ala, completing same at 8:25 A. M.
"On November 28, 1956 Conductor of work extra
SRS-118 at Palmetto was furnished order No. 2 at LaGrange, Ga. reading Engine
SRS-118 at Palmetta ho Work Extra SRS-118 and all concerned East.
"Claim for eight hours pay for senior idle telegrapher, preferably
extra, is made for each of the above violations.
"Please advise your acceptance."
It will be noted no rule is cited as being violated and in subsequent appeals
no rule violation was cited. Indeed, there are none. Due to the manner in which
claim was handled, Carrier has no idea of what will be argued in Petitioner's
ex parts submission, and is in no position to comment on same. Carrier is
frankly at a loss to understand Petitioner's motive in progressing a case of
this kind in view of the fact that two cases of the same character, one identical, have been denied on the property. We assume "hope springs eternal in the
human breast."
There is no merit to this claim and we respectfully request it be denied.
To the extent possible, data contained herein has been made available to
Petitioner.
OPINION OF BOARD:
This case is factually indistinguishable from the
dispute between these same parties decided by our Award 6487, which was.
adopted on February 11, 1954.
Effective September 16, 1956, the parties revised their agreement, readopting without change the rules upon which the employes relied for support
of their claim in Award 6487. Those same rules are relied upon in the same
manner in the present case.
This Board has often and properly held that re-adoption of an agreement
provision in identical language evidences re-adoption of interpretations thereof.
In Award 2679 it was said:
"We think the rule is that where a portion of a written contract
is carried forward verbatim into a new contract, all interpretations of
the old agreement are carried forward into the new unless there be a
declared intent to the contrary,...
See, also, Awards 4791 and 7968.
In Award 5133, this Board held that:
11790-15
995
. . It does not admit of dispute that the Board's interpretation
of rules becomes a part of the Agreement to all intents and purposes
as though written into the rule book . . . ."
These official pronouncements are sound and directly applicable to the
dispute before us. The Board interpreted the rules pleaded in Award 6487,
which interpretation became a part of the contract between the parties. Those
same rules were carried forward, in identical language, into the new agreement.
Thus the parties ratified the interpretation of Award 6487, and they may not
now be heard to complain.
Because the claims must be denied for the reasons indicated, it is unnecessary to consider other matters discussed in the record.
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
That the Agreement was not violated.
AWARD
Claims denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of THIRD DIVISION
ATTEST: S. H. Schulty
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois this 25th day of October 1963.