Summarizing, Carrier maintains that the basic issue in dispute is one of jurisdiction, and that the claim should be dismissed by your Board for the reason that all parties with a vested interest in the work at issue have not been accorded an opportunity to protect their individual interests. Then too, the claim is also without merit. There has been no violation of the Clerks' agreement as to the manner in which Car Department employes have been handling cars. This is rather a continuation of an arrangement which has long been in effect, and your Board should not look with favor upon the Clerks' attempt to secure through an award of your Board a new agreement provision over and above that which was agreed to by the parties during contract negotiations.
Accordingly, the Carrier requests that if the claim not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction that your Board deny it in its entirety for lack of merit or agreement support.
OPINION OF BOARD: In December, 1956, the Carrier placed in operation at Buffalo a new electronic yard, known as Frontier Yard. Prior to the establishment of the Frontier Yard, employes of the Carrier's cleaning track were used to adjust and transfer loads at the Buffalo Division, but in addition, loads were adjusted by the Carrier's Car Department Employes. There had been in operation at this point, a number of yards described as V. I. Yard, H. C. Yard, Main Track, Stock Yards, and West Shore, Gardenville and East Buffalo Transfer Track. Prior to the opening of the Frontier Yard, the bulk of the cars requiring transfer or adjustment were switched out and sent to the Gardenville Transfer Track or the East Buffalo Transfer Track, where correction was made by the employes known as freight truckers.
When the Frontier Yard was constructed, it did not contain a transfer track. When the Frontier Yard was put in operation, the Gardenville Transfer forces were moved back to the East Buffalo Transfer Yard and the Gardenville Yard closed. Thereafter the transfer work was sent to East Buffalo for transfer by the cleaning crew on the transfer track. The bulk of the adjustment work at the Frontier Yard was done by Car Department employes at the Frontier Yard. A portion of the adjustment work was done by the cleaning employes, at East Buffalo.
The claim involves only the adjustment work. It is clear from the facts that such work has not been exclusive to the Claimants, and that Car Department employes have also performed adjustment work. The Organization cites Awards 3003, 3004, and 4465 in support of its position. These awards con- 12130-27 978
corned transfer work but not adjustment work. In each award, the claim was denied, though the Organization contended that the work in question was covered by the Scope Rule. Award 3004 (Carter) contains the following language and quotes Award 615 (Swacker) as follows:
The Organization has, in its submission, purported to list the transfers and adjustments made at Gardenville and East Buffalo for the 24 months of 1956 and 1957. It purports to show no adjustments by Car Department employes in 1956, and 530 adjustments by Car Department Employes in 1957. The list loses its probativeness when it fails to show who compiled it, or how it was compiled. It certainly is not a record kept in the usual course of business, and there is no showing that the compiler was in a position to know the .full extent of all the adjustments made. The above comment must be considered in connection with the Carrier's undenied and positive assertion that Car Department Employes did perform substantial adjustment work.
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 respec tively 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