NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
(Supplemental)
CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE, ST. PAUL & PACIFIC
RAILROAD COMPANY
1. Carrier violated the Clerks' Agreement when effective January 6, 1960, it abolished Baggageman Position No. 312 at Calmar, Iowa, and unilaterally assigned the remaining duties thereof to employes outside the scope and application of that Agreement.
2. Carrier shall return the work assigned to and performed on Baggageman Position No. 312 prior to its abolishment to the Clerks' Agreement and the employes covered thereby.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: For many years the Carrier has maintained one or more positions covered by the Clerks' Agreement at Calmar, Iowa. United States Labor Board Award No. 1986, which became effective on October 16, 1923, shows the following positions covered by the Clerks' Agreement at Calmar, Iowa, when that Award became effective:
The Carrier continued to maintain several positions covered by the Clerks' agreement at Calmar until sometime between January and July, 1932, when
The Carrier wishes to point out that Claimant Black has suffered no lost earnings since being affected by the abolishment of Baggageman Position No. 312 at Calmar effective January 6, 1960, as each position he has occupied since that date has carried a rate of pay higher than that of Position No. 312.
There is no basis for this claim. There has been no violation of the schedule rules. The Carrier respectfully requests that the claim be denied.
OPINION OF BOARD: In this claim Petitioner alleges that Carrier violated the Clerks' Agreement when it abolished the position of baggageman at Calmar, Iowa, on January 6, 1960.
The employes contend that the violation stems from the assignment of the remaining duties of the aforesaid position to employes outside the scope of the Clerks' Agreement.
Carrier submits three basic contentions for its defense of this action. First, it says that the special "one man station agreement" is controlling; second, that "position" is not synonymous with "work" as employes contend, and, third, that the Scope Rule is general in nature, thereby necessitating systemwide proof of exclusive performance of the disputed duties.
There is ample evidence and a great many awards which point out and affirm that the Scope Rule of this Agreement has been considered as general by this Board. We direct your attention specifically to Award 12360. Such being the case, it is necessary to look to tradition, past practice, and custom to see who customarily performs these duties.
In this claim, it is the opinion of the Board that such requirements have not been met, and such exclusive performance of duties has not been shown either systemwide or at this particular location. Therefore, the claim is denied.
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