NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
TRANSPORTATION-COMMUNICATION EMPLOYEES UNION
(Formerly The Order of Railroad Telegraphers)
NORFOLK AND WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
Claim of the General Committee of The
Order of Railroad Telegraphers on the Norfolk and Western Railway that:
1. Carrier violated and continues to violate the agreement between
the parties when it declared abolished the following positions
and transferred all the work thereof to employes not covered
by the agreement:
Second Operator at Waynesboro, Virginia on March 27, 1959;
Second Operator at Berryville, Virginia on March 30, 1959;
Second Operator at Luray, Virginia on April 1, 1959;
Second Operator at Front Royal, Virginia on April 7, 1959.
2. Carrier shall be required to compensate the following employes
moved from their regular assignments under the provisions of
Rule 21: T. F. Humphries, C. M. McCrory, K. J. Lowe, M. L.
McIntosh, W. H. Hankins, F. E. Hankins, L. E. Ramsey, M. T.
Ramsey, W. E. Huffman, M. C. Erickson, M. A. Patterson and
C. E. Ballard.
3. Carrier shall also compensate all other employes adversely
affected for any wage loss suffered.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: The agreements between the
parties are available to your Board and by this reference are made a part
hereof.
Waynesboro, Berryville, Luray and Front Royal, all in the State of
Virginia, are stations on the Shenandoah Division of this Carrier.
On the dates shown in the Statement of Claim, the Carrier declared
abolished the position of second operator at each of these stations. This also
resulted in the discontinuance of relief positions which furnished the rest day
relief thereon. At each station it created a position of clerk, under another
to April 6, 1959. The only work transferred from the Second Operator and
Clerk position to clerk at Front Royal was strictly clerical work not reserved
exclusively to Telegraphers.
The Employes filed the following claim:
"STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
1. Carrier violated and continues to violate the Agreement be-
tween the parties when it declared abolished the position of Second
Operator at Berryville, Virginia on March 30, 1959; the position of
Second Operator and Clerk at Front Royal, Virginia on April 7,
1959; Relief Position No. 2 on March 28, 1959 and transferred all
the work of these positions to employes not covered by the Agreement.
2. Carrier shall be required to compensate the following employes moved from their regular assignments under the provisions
of Rule 21 commencing on March 30, 1959, April 7, 1959, March 28,
1959, and continuing thereafter until the violation is corrected.
C. M. McCrory
M. G. Erickson
M. L. McIntosh
M. A. Patterson
C. E. Ballard
3. Carrier shall compensate all other employes adversely affected
for any wage loss suffered."
The Carrier declined the claim.
OPINION OF BOARD: Carrier abolished positions of second operator
at the four stations named in the claim. Petitioner contends that some of the
work formerly performed by the operators covered in the Telegraphers'
Agreement was transferred to and was being performed by clerical employes
not covered by that Agreement.
Carrier failed to clearly meet the issue on the property. In reply to the
original presentation of the claim and in the various stages of appeal Carrier
merely said, "In my opinion, the claim is not supported by the rules cited;
therefore, it is declined" and "I do not consider the claims for the employes
you have named to be supported by Rules 1, 2 and 21 of the current agreement, which you cite, and all claims are declined." Carrier's highest appeal
officer wrote:
"We understand the basis of the claim in the instant case is the
abolishment of a telegrapher position and having a clerk perform
the clerical work previously performed by the telegrapher.
Our decision is the claim is not supported by the rule cited
and it is declined."
It is unfortunate that the Carrier was not more specific and did not
present its position in full. A general denial leaves much to be desired.
14602 15
Not until the claim was
appealed to
this Division did the Carrier present
evidence and arguments in some detail which fully met the assertions of
the Petitioner.
But the burden of proof is upon the Petitioner to show that
telegraphers'
work was transferred to and was being performed by clerks. The mere fact
that
telegraphers, who
occupied the abolished positions, had performed some
clerical work in addition to their other duties does not establish the fact
that it was work covered under the Telegraphers'
Agreement. Petitioner
has
failed to
meet this
burden of proof.
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
That the 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 29th day of June 1966.
Keenan Printing Co., Chicago, Ill. Printed in U.S.A.
14602 16