NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
THE ORDER OF RAILROAD TELEGRAPHERS
GULF, MOBILE AND OHIO RAILROAD COMPANY
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
Claim of the General Committee of The
Order of Railroad Telegraphers on the Gulf, Mobile and Ohio Railroad, that:
Carrier violated the Agreement between the parties when it
required or permitted employes not covered by the Agreement to
handle train orders as follows:
1. (a) On August 7, 1959 at Elton, Mississippi, a conductor
handled (received, copied and delivered) Train Order No. 25.
(b) Carrier shall compensate A. E. Plunk, senior idle telegrapher, in the amount of a day's pay (8 hours).
2. (a) On February 15, 1960 at Dancy, Mississippi, a conauctor handled (received, copied and delivered) Train Order No. 43.
(b) Carrier shall compensate extra telegrapher T. G. Walton in the amount of a day's pay (8 hours).
3. (a) On March 21, 1960 at Mantes, Mississippi, a conductor
handled (received, copied and delivered) Train Order No. 26.
(b) Carrier shall compensate extra telegrapher Bill Kennedy, Jr. in the amount of a day's pay (8 hours).
4. (a) On March 23, 1960 at Mantes, Mississippi, a conductor
handled (received, copied and delivered) Train Order No. 30.
(b) Carrier shall compensate extra telegrapher Bill Kennedy, Jr. in the amount of a day's pay (8 hours).
5. (a) On April 7, 1960 at Jeff, Mississippi, a conductor
handled (received, copied and delivered) Train Order No. 30.
(b) Carrier shall compensate extra telegrapher J. M. Ferguson in the amount of a day's pay (8 hours).
[149]
12766-z5
173
question raised here was considered by this Division in Award 408. In that
case, the factual situation was similar to the one before us, and while the
agreement was between . . , the language of the rule involved was identical to Rule 48 in every material respect. . . Since Award 408 is squarely
on point and is the only prior decision of the Division which has interpreted
the rule under similar circumstances, it should be followed in this case."
This same principle was expressed by Referee Coburn in Award 8458, ORT
vs. DL&W, decided September 16, 1958. The Award stated:
"We find and hold that Awards 4768 and 4769 are controlling
here. The issue involved in those cases is the same one we are asked
to re-adjudicate now. The Board, as a matter of law and sound public
policy, ought to adhere to the rule of res judicata. The law declares
'The awards of the several divisions of the Adjustment Board .
shall be final and binding upon both parties to the dispute. .
(Section 3, First (m).) This Board itself in Award 6935 (Referee
Coffey), enunciated this sound policy when it said:
`If, as we maintain, our awards are final and binding,
there must be an end sometime to one and the same dispute
or we settle nothing, and invite endless controversy instead.
The pending claims, having been once adjudicated, are now
barred from further Board consideration, and must be denied
on jurisdictional grounds."'
Following these well established principles enumerated in prior decisions
of this Board, the instant claim should be denied.
CONCLUSION
The Organization has previously attempted to have the agreement between
the parties enlarged to such an
extent that
it would justify claims such as
here presented. Being unsuccessful in such attempts, the Organization is
attempting to have this Board write into the agreement by contract construction, language that the parties themselves have in past instances carefully considered and purposely rejected. This Board has in innumerable cases,
including decisions affecting the parties here, held that the scope and train
order rules of prior agreements containing identical language to the current
agreement do not support the claim. The precise issues presented in this case
have previously been passed upon by this Board and this Board should uphold its prior decisions lest the parties be in utter confusion as to their
responsibilities.
The claim here presented is contrary to the agreement and is unreasonable as to practical railroad operations and should be denied.
(Exhibits not reproduced.)
OPINION OF BOARD: The claims herein involve the same parties and
same issues as involved in Award 12761. For the reasons stated in that Award,
the claims herein will also be denied.
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;
12766-26
174
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
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of THIRD DIVISION
ATTEST: S. H. Schulty
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 17th day of July 1964.