NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
(Supplemental)
Don Hamilton, Referee
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY AND STEAMSHIP CLERKS,
FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS AND STATION EMPLOYES
PHILADELPHIA, BETHLEHEM AND NEW ENGLAND
RAILROAD COMPANY
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
Claim of the System Committee of the
Brotherhood (GL-4929) that:
(a) The Carrier violated the Agreement when, effective May 27,
1960, it suspended Claimants from their regularly assigned positions.
(b) Carrier shall now compensate Claimants at the pro rata
rate of their positions as follows:
Mertz, J. A. 1 day May 28, 1960
Fisher, J. G.
1
day May 29, 1960
Ryan, J. P., Jr. 2 days May 28 and 29, 1960
Lilly, W. C. 2 days May 28 and 29, 1960
Kline, J. J. 2 days May 28 and 30, 1960
Thatcher, R. W. 2 days May 28 and 29, 1960
Mack, A. R., Jr. 2 days May 27 and 31, 1960
Ryan, T. P. 2 days May 29 and 31, 1960
Reed, E. H. 2 days May 28 and 29, 1960
Dorney, R. M. 3 days May 27, 28 and 30, 1960
Sawaska, J. P. 3 days May 27, 30 and 31, 1960
Christof, E. H. 4 days May 27, 28, 30 and 31, 1960
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS:
1. On May 24, 1960 Carrier posted Clerical Bulletin No. 720 announcing
that all positions would be abolished effective Friday, May 27, 1960, 11:00
P. M. and adding that all employes affected would be assigned in seniority
order to meet service requirements (Employes' Exhibit A). Effective 7:00
[2$87
12975--32
319
(b) When positions are abolished, any remaining duties shall
be re-assigned through conference in accordance with paragraph (a)
of this Rule."
A mere reading of the Rule shows its inapplicability here.
Finally, the Local Chairman charges a violation of "various sections of
Rule 15-Seniority," without specifying them; and the General Chairman
goes no further than to agree with the Local Chairman's general statement.
In general with regard to the Seniority Rule, the basic purpose of that
Rule is to give employes the right to work according to seniority. Here the
claim of the Brotherhood is on behalf of the 12 junior-most outside clerks
whose assignments were abolished. It is, of course, obvious from the lack
of claims on behalf of the senior clerks that they worked as much time as
they would have worked had their assignments not been abolished, demonstrating how effectively the Carrier divided the reduced amount of work
among the senior employes. This certainly meets the purpose of the Seniority
Rule, and, the Carrier submits, is not inconsistent with any of the provisions
of the Rule.
For all the reasons stated, it is the Carrier's position that the Brotherhood's
claim is without merit and should be denied.
(Exhibits not reproduced.)
OPINION OF BOARD:
This case is the same in all material respects
as in Award No. 12974.
We adopt the opinion therein as determinative of the issues in this case.
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 Agreement was violated.
AWARD
Claim sustained.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of THIRD DIVISION
ATTEST: S. H. Schulty
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 14th day of October 1964.
12975-33
320
CARRIER MEMBERS' DISSENT TO
AWARD 12975, DOCKET CL-12677
We dissent to this award for the reasons previously stated in our Dissent
to Award 12974.
W. F. Euker
R. A. DeRossett
C. H. Manoogian
G. L. Naylor
W. M. Roberta
LABOR MEMBER'S ANSWER TO
CARRIER MEMBERS' DISSENT TO
AWARD 12975, DOCKET CL-12677
Our answer to Carrier Members' Dissent to this Award is the same as
that which we state in our Answer to Carrier Members' Dissent to Award
12974, Docket CL-12597.
D. E. Watkins
Labor Member