The Railway Labor Act, in Section 3 First, subsection (i), confers upon the National Railroad Adjustment Board the power to hear and determine disputes growing out of "grievances or out of the interpretation or application of agreements concerning rates of pay, rules and working conditions." The National Railroad Adjustment Board is empowered only to decide the said dispute in accordance with the Agreement between the parties to it. To grant the claim of the Employes in this case would require the Board to disregard the Agreement between the parties thereto and impose upon the Carrier conditions of employment and obligations with reference thereto not agreed upon by the parties to this dispute. The Board has no jurisdiction or authority to take such action.

CONCLUSION

Carrier has established that the rate adjustment sought by the Employes can only be accomplished through negotiations by the parties; that the only circumstances requiring the Carrier to enter into negotiations concerning adjustments in the rates of pay of positions covered by the Telegraphers' Agreement are those specifically set forth in Regulation 8-A-1; that such circumstances are not present in the instant case; and that, therefore, no proper basis exists for an award requiring the Carrier to enter into negotiations with a view to considering an adjustment in the rate of pay of the Agent at Jamesburg.

Therefore, your Board is respectfully requested to deny or dismiss the claim of the Employes in this matter.

(Exhibits not reproduced.)

OPINION OF BOARD: The essential facts are not in dispute. Claimam held an Agent position at Jamesburg, New Jersey; he received a monthly salary from the Carrier. In addition thereto, he was paid a commission by the Railway Express Agency. The Express Agency was removed. He no longer receives a commission and his total monthly earnings have declined.

There is no rule in the Agreement which requires Carrier to negotiate rates of pay when an employe's earnings are reduced because of loss of commissions from the Railway Express Agency.

Employes contend that Claimant's rate of pay "when negotiated was predicated on the fact that the Agent handled a considerable amount of commissions each month." In support of this position, the Employes have cited instances where the Carrier made wage rate adjustments for Agent positions at other locations when express commissions were lost.

Carrier agrees that adjustments have been made, and in a letter to the General Chairman, dated August 9, 1962, said, in part:

"Full consideration has been given to each of the points advanced by you, all of which tend to take the position that there have been instances and situations in the past where increases in monthly rates of pay applicable to Agents have been granted solely because of the disappearance of express commissions.

A search of our files indicates that in such instances, particularly in the cases cited by you, that while the initial claim or re-

quest in each such case was presented on the basis of disappearance of express commissions, the final disposition of each case, if an increase was granted, was based upon a substantial change in the duties or responsibilities of the Agent's position sufficient to warrant an increase in rate of pay, under 8-A-1(b)."

But the Employes presented eleven agencies where wage rates were adjusted because of loss of commissions and only one location where wages were adjusted because of loss of commission and increase of industries. These adjustments ranged from $5.00 to $64.45 per month. And the Carrier has not categorically denied this. It says only that the adjustments were made because of a substantial change in the duties and responsibilities of the positions. Nowhere in the record does Carrier show the extent or nature of such substantial changes.

Regulation 8-A-1(b) reads:

"(b) When the number of days or number of hours constituting the monthly tour of duty of a Group 1 position are substantially changed or the duties or responsibilities of a Group 1 position are substantially changed, adjustment in the monthly rate of pay for such position shall be a subject for negotiation between the proper officer of the Company and the duly accredited representative of the employes." (Emphasis ours.)

Under this rule the Carrier is obligated to negotiate when there is a iubatantial change in the number of hours in the employe's position. It is reasonable to assume that this generally means an increase in the number of hours constituting the tour of duty. But, the language alone is not that Gear. Certainly, the elimination of the express business at the agency permitted the Claimant to spend more hours on Carrier's business. It is also reasonable to assume that the Carrier has given this construction to Regulation 8-A-1(b) when it increased the monthly rates at the eleven agencies where there was a loss of commission without any proof that the duties and responsibilities of the Agents had also increased. This is particularly true because Carrier nowhere denies that the rate of pay for the Claimant was negotiated with the fact in mind that he would also be earning express commissions. It follows, therefore, that some of his hours of work during his tour of duty would be devoted to the Railway Express Agency.

We have no right to determine whether an adjustment of $15.00 a month, at one time offered by the Carrier, or any other amount is a reasonable and fair adjustment in the rate. We have no authority to fix wage rates. That is a matter for negotiation between the parties.

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

AWARD

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

By Order of THIRD DIVISION

ATTEST: S. H. Schulty

Executive Secretary

CARRIER MEMBERS' DISSENT TO AWARD 14095,

DOCKET TE-14763 (Referee Dolnick)

* * * we cannot make a decision which relies on conjecture or .peculation."

For the reasons set forth above, among others, we dissent.

W. F. Euker