NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
(Supplemental)
Benjamin H. Wolf, Referee
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
THE ORDER OF RAILROAD TELEGRAPHERS
RICHMOND, FREDERICKSBURG AND POTOMAC
RAILROAD COMPANY
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of The
Order of Railroad Telegraphers on the Richmond, Fredericksburg and Potomac Railroad, that:
1. Carrier violated the terms of the Telegraphers' Agreement,
when and because it permitted and required Conductor Wingfield on
Extra 103 South to handle (receive, copy and deliver) train order
No. 6 addressed to his train at Dahlgreen Junction, Virginia, October
2, 1957.
2. Carrier shall compensate the senior, idle employe (extra in
preference) for a day's pay-eight hours at the applicable rate
October 2, 1957 for the aforesaid violation. The name of the employe
entitled to the compensation to be determined by a joint check of
the Carrier's records.
3. Carrier violated the terms of the Telegraphers' Agreement,
when and because it permitted and required Conductor C. R. Wade
on Extra 102 to handle (receive, copy and deliver) train order No. 13
addressed to his train at Dahlgreen Junction, Virginia, October 3, 1957.
4. Carrier shall compensate the senior, idle employe (extra in
preference) for a day's pay-eight hours at the applicable rate October 3, 1957 for the aforesaid violation. The name of the employe entitled to the compensation to be determined by a joint check of the
Carrier's records.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF
FACTS: There is in full force and
effect a collective bargaining agreement entered into between the Richmond,
Fredericksburg and Potomac Railroad Company, hereinafter referred to as
Carrier or Management and The Order of Railroad Telegraphers, hereinafter
referred to as Employes, or Telegraphers. The agreement was effective April
10, 1953, and is on file with this Division. The agreement, by reference, is
incorporated into this submission as though set out herein word for word.
(69j
12496- 21 gg
When proper consideration is given to everything that has been
heretofore stated, and due note is taken of its form and position as
incorporated in Article 21, there can be little doubt that subsection
(b) supra, must be regarded as qualifying the force and effect to
be given the provisions of subsection (a), supra, which precedes it.
So regarded, we believe that inherent in such subsection, and certainly if not inherent, clearly implied therein, is the proposition that
- so far as the particular agreement now in force and effect on the
involved property is concerned-if train orders are handled at stations where no member of the craft is employed, they may be handled
by other employes."
i i i i i i i i i
In conclusion, the Carrier submits it has shown that the claims are without merit, unsupported by any rules, practice or precedent, or on any logical premise, but merely constitute an attempt on the part of the Organization
to secure through an award from the Board an interpretation not intended
by the parties when the rules were negotiated and is a further effort to force
the Carrier to establish telegraphers' positions where none are required and
could not possibly serve any useful purpose. It is clearly an unjustified makework demand and all the claims involved should be dismissed or denied for the
reasons stated herein.
OPINION OF BOARD: The facts in this case are similar to those which
we considered in Award No. 12494 (TE-10649) and that award is controlling
here.
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 Carrier violated the Agreement to the extent indicated in the Opinion.
AWARD
Claims No. 1 and 3 are sustained.
Claims No. 2 and 4 are denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of THIRD DIVISION
ATTEST: S. H. Schulty
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 21st day of May 1964.
12496- z2
90
CARRIER MEMBERS' DISSENT TO AWARDS 12494, 12495,
AND 12496, DOCKETS TE-10649, TE-10650, AND TE-10651
Referee Benjamin H. Wolf
In these Awards the majority committed error by failing to apply the
well-established rule of contract construction, that of construing the rule in
its entirety, each paragraph being read in light of the others, to ascertain
the parties' intent.
(Awards 11767 and 10785.) Had this well-established rule
been applied, the consistent, harmonious and sensible result would have been
that Article XVII applied only at stations or locations where an employe
covered by the Agreement is employed.
For this and other reasons the awards are erroneous and we dissent.
R. A. DeRossett
R. E. Black
W. F. Euker
G. L. Naylor
W. M. Roberts