NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
John H. Dorsey, Referee
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY AND STEAMSHIP CLERKS,
FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS AND STATION EMPLOYES
ST. LOUIS-SAN FRANCISCO RAILWAY COMPANY
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the
Brotherhood that: (GL-4999):
CLAIM I
(a) The Carrier violated the terms of the current Agreement between the parties at Memphis, Tennessee, when on October 24, 1959,
and subsequent dates, it assigned duties of the Utility Clerk position to be performed by messenger-porters and when it failed and
refused to compensate the messenger-porters at the established rate
of pay for the work they were required to perform.
(b) Messenger-porter C. T. Hogan shall now be allowed the difference between the rate of the position of Utility Clerk and the
amount already paid for October 24, 1959.
(c) C. T. Hogan and all other occupants of messenger-porter position at Memphis, Tennessee, shall be allowed the difference between
the rate of the position of Utility Clerk and the amount already paid
for all dates subsequent to October 24, 1959, and for which claims of
record have been filed as follows:
Employe Dates
C. T. Hogan June 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13, 1960.
F. D. Arwood March 20, 24, 25, 26, 27, 31, April 1 and 2, 1960.
M. E. Ellis November 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 19, December 15, 17, 18,
19, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 31, 1960.
January 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 28, 29, 30, 31,
February 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 18, 1961.
W. C. Freeman December 24, 1959, December 17, 23, 24, 25, 30,
1960, January 1, 2, 6, 7, 13, 15, 20, March 3, 4,
5, 10, 11, 12, 17, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25 and 30, 1961.
[991
12564--2
100
Employe Dates
B. D. Allen
January 9, 21, 22, 23, 24, 29, February 11, 13,
18, 19, 25, 26, March 3, 4, 5, 11, 13, April 9, 14,
15 and May 5, 1960.
(d) Utility Clerk L. R. Williams shall now be allowed payment
at the time and one-half rate for forty minutes on March 11, 1960,
and fifty minutes on March 13, 1960, representing time spent by messenger-porters in performing the work of his position on those dates.
CLAIM II
(a) The Carrier violated the terms of the current Agreement
between the parties at West Tulsa, Oklahoma, when on March 29,
1960, and subsequent dates, it assigned duties of Yard Clerk positions to be performed by janitor-messengers and when it failed
and refused to compensate the janitor-messengers at the established
rate of pay for the work they were required to perform.
(b) Janitor-messenger P. L. Walner shall now be allowed the
difference between the rate of position of Yard Clerks and the
amount already paid for March 29, 1960.
(c) P. L. Walner and all other occupants of janitor-messenger
position at West Tulsa, Oklahoma, shall be allowed the difference
between the rate of the position of Yard Clerk and the amount already paid for all dates subsequent to March 29, 1960, for which
claims of record have been filed as follows:
Employe Dates
Paul L. Walner March 30, June 28, July 4, September 12, Octo
ber 13, 21, 1960, February 26, March 6, 9, and 11,
1961.
R. D. Garrison December 11, 1960.
Ben Radcliff, Jr. September 1, December 4 and 6, 1960.
B. L. Adams July 2, 12, 16, November 23, 26, December 13
and 14, 1960.
B. F. Hill June 16, 17, 24, 1960, February 27, March 14, 17
and 18, 1961.
T. G. Bradshaw January 20 and 27, 1961.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS:
CLAIM I
When the principal train yard at Memphis, Tennessee, was moved to the
newly built Tennessee Yard, which was placed in operation in 1957, the work
of checking and carding cars moving over the "hump" was assigned exclusively to the occupants of utility clerk positions. These utility clerk positions are classified in seniority Group 1, and are rated at a rate of pay
which is now $19.74 per day. Carrier also maintained a position of messengerporter at this facility and this position is classified in seniority Group 2 and
rated at a rate of pay which is now $16.64 per day. Prior to October 24, 1959,
12564-25
123
The Organization, in effect, agrees that the issue in the instant dispute
is the same as the issue decided by SBA No. 194 in Awards 19, 21, 22 and 36,
but it is unwilling to accept the Board's interpretation of the rules. Therefore, the instant claims represent an effort on the part of the Organization
to upset the principles laid down in the awards of SBA No. 194 and the
Organization is merely approaching the same principle from several directions in an effort to have the Board reverse its position in those awards.
It can only be concluded that the instant claims are nothing more than an
attempt on the part of the Organization to relitigate a matter which has
already been decided by Special Board of Adjustment No. 194. The awards
rendered by SBA No. 194 are final and binding, and the Organization's dissent thereto renders them no less effective.
There is no basis for a sustaining award under the controlling rules
agreement, and this Division is requested to so find.
(Exhibits not reproduced.)
OPINION OF BOARD: This claim involves the same parties and Agreement and presents the same issue as Award No. 12562. For the reasons stated
in Award No. 12562, we will deny the claim.
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 Carrier did not violate the Agreement.
AWARD
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of THIRD DIVISION
ATTEST: S. H. Schulty
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day of May 1964.