NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY AND STEAMSHIP CLERKS,
FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS AND STATION EMPLOYES
THE PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the
Brotherhood (GL-4808) that:
(a) The Carrier violated the Rules Agreement, effective May 1,
1942, except as amended, particularly Rule 3-C-2, when it abolished
the Station Baggageman position of G. H. Henry, at the Freight
Station, Tasley, Virginia, Chesapeake Region, effective February 21,
1958.
(b) The position should be restored in order to terminate this
claim, and that G. H. Henry and all other employes affected by the
abolishment of this position should be restored to their former status
(including vacations) and be compensated for any monetary loss sustained by working at a lesser rate of pay; be compensated for any
loss sustained under Rule 4-A-1 and Rule 4-C-1; be compensated in
accordance with Rule 4-A-2 (a) and (b) for work performed on
Holidays, or for Holiday pay lost, or on the rest days of their former
position; be compensated in accordance with Rule 4-A-3 if their working days were reduced below the guarantee provided in this rule; be
compensated in accordance with Rule 4-A-6 for all work performed
in between the tour of duty of their former position; be reimbursed
for all expenses sustained in accordance with Rule 4-G-1 (b); that the
total monetary loss sustained; including expenses, under this claim
be ascertained jointly by the parties at time of settlement (Award
7287).
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: This dispute is between the
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and
Station Employes as the representative of the class or craft of employes in
which the Claimant in this case held position and the Pennsylvania Railroad
Company-hereinafter referred to as the Brotherhood and the Carrier, respectively.
There is in effect a Rules Agreement, effective May 1, 1942, except as
amended, covering Clerical, Other Office, Station and Storehouse Employes
[·; 67
12365-18
63
Therefore, the Carrier respectfully submits that your Honorable Board
should deny the claim of the Employes in this matter.
(Exhibits not reproduced.)
OPINION OF BOARD:
Prior to January 13, 1958, the Agent was the
Carrier's sole employe at the Tasley, Virginia station. Effective January 12,
1958, one Group 1 clerical position and three Group 2 positions of Station
Baggagemen, including the position held by the Claimant, were transferred
from Cape Charles, Virginia to Tasley. These transfers came about as the
result of rearrangements in work locations due to the discontinuance of passenger trains designated 454 and 455.
One position of Baggageman was abolished on January 24, 1958. A second
position of Baggageman which was held by the Claimant was abolished on
February 21, 1958. After these changes the remaining force consisted of one
Agent, one Group 1 clerical position and one Group 2 Baggageman.
The Petitioner alleges that the Carrier has violated the Scope Rule and
Rule 3-C-2 of the Agreement. The Scope Rule in the instant case is general
in character and merely lists classes of employes but does not describe the
work done by these classes of employes. Carrier contends that this Division
has consistently held in a long line of decisions that in the above type of general Scope Rule the principle which applies is as follows:
Award 6824 (Referee Shake):
"Since the Scope Rule of the effective Agreement is general in
character and does not undertake to enumerate the functions embraced therein, the Claimant's right to the work which they contend
belonged exclusively to them must be resolved from a consideration of
tradition, historical practice and custom; and on that issue the burden
of proof rests upon the employes."
Petitioner's claim is based on the fact that the remaining duties of the
abolished position were assigned in part to a Group 1 clerical position and
in part to a Group 2 Baggageman position remaining in existence at the location involved. Petitioner alleges that Rule 3-B-1 is violated when work of an
abolished Group 2 position is assigned to a Group 1 position on the basis that
this Rule prohibits the crossing of seniority lines.
We feel that the Petitioner has failed to show that the Agreement prohibits the Carrier from crossing seniority districts from Group 1 to Group 2
and vice versa. In order for the Petitioner to prevail in a claim of this nature,
it is essential for it to prove by a preponderance of credible evidence that the
Employes have traditionally, customarily and exclusively performed this work.
But where work can be assigned to two or more crafts, the assignment to one
craft will not give rise to a claim by the other craft. See Awards 7031, 7784,
7954, 8001, 12106, 12108 and 11993.
The Organization called attention
to Award 3582 and cited this case as
support for its position:
" * * * At the most, these provisions recognize that certain positions might be made up of both classes of work or that the employes
might he transferred from Group 2 to Group 1 positions * * *. As we
view these facts the Carrier, in order not to work Group 1 employes
12365--19
64
on overtime required Group 2 employes to suspend work for 3 hours
and 16 minutes and perform Group 1 work. We think there was a clear
violation of Rule 4-C-1 of the Agreement:
Employes will not be required to suspend work during
regular hours to absorb overtime."
Thus the above Award turns not on a prohibition to transfer work across
Group lines, but solely on the Carrier's contractual obligation not to suspend
work to absorb overtime. This case is not apposite to the facts involved in
the current dispute.
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;
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 Carrier did not violate the Agreement.
AWARD
The claim is denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of THIRD DIVISION
ATTEST: S. H. Schulty
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 31st day of March 1964.