NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
(Supplemental)
John R. Dorsey, Referee
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
TRANSPORTATION-COMMUNICATION EMPLOYES UNION
(FORMERLY THE ORDER OF RAILROAD TELEGRAPHERS)
PANHANDLE AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
Claim of the General Committee of The Order of Railroad Telegraphers on The Panhandle & Santa
Fe
Railway Company,
that:
1. The Carrier violated the terms of the Agreement between the
parties when, without negotiation or agreement, on or about April 19,
1960, it unilaterally declared abolished the position of second shift telegrapher-clerk at Levelland, Texas, and assigned the work of this
position to the agent-telegrapher whose hours were changed to cover
two hours of the abolished telegrapher-clerk's assignment.
2. Carrier further violated the Agreement (Article V of the August 21, 1954 Agreement) when the Superintendent failed to notify
the representative filing and appealing the claim of his reasons for
disallowing the claim.
3. Carrier shall now be required to compensate Telegrapher-Clerk
E. L. Boyd for eight hours' pay at the rate of the second shift telegrapber-clerk position at Levelland each work day, in addition to pay at
the time and one-half rate for work performed outside the assigned
hours of the former second shift telegrapher-clerk position at Levelland, plus actual expenses incurred on each day he works at a station
other than Levelland.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Agreement between the parties, bearing effective date of June 1,1951, is in evidence.
This dispute concerns the Carrier's unilateral abolishment of the 2:00
P. M. to 10:00 P. M. telegrapher-clerk position, without conference or negotiation, at Levelland, Texas, and the assignment of the work of this position
to the Agent-telegrapher.
Prior to April 19, 1960, the station force at Levelland, Texas, was:
allowed as presented Award 9492.
The Superintendent's statements that the claim `was not supported by agreement rules' is a conclusion that must be reached by
any Carrier representative before disallowing a claim, however, some
reason or reasons for arriving at such a conclusion should be given
to the Employe representative.
It is noted that District Chairman Bradley addressed three
letters to Superintendent May in a futile attempt to secure reasons
for denial of the claim.
This is to advise you that your decision is not satisfactory and
will be appropriately appealed.
Yours truly,
/s/ D. B. Bobo
General Chairman"
OPINION OF BOARD:
This case involves the same parties and Agreement as in Award No. 14772; also, the same fatal procedural deficiency. For
the reasons stated in Award No. 14772 we will dismiss the Claim.
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
In failing to particularize the Rules allegedly violated, when it had the
burden of doing so, Petitioner failed to perfect its Claim.
AWARD
Claim dismissed.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
ATTEST: S. H. Schulty
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 23rd day of September, 1966.
Keenan Printing Company, Chicago, Illinois
Printed in U. S. A.
14773
18