NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
(Supplemental)
CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE, ST. PAUL AND PACIFIC
RAILROAD COMPANY
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood (OL-5483) that:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: On April 4, 1956, Bulletin No. 9 was issued advertising Head Price Clerk Position No. 14 in the Office of Chief Purchasing Officer, Seniority District No. 116, at a rate of pay of $470.67 per month. Attached as Employes' Exhibit A is a copy of Bulletin No. 9.
On April 11, 1956, assignment Bulletin No. 9 was issued awarding Head Price Clerk Position No. 14 to Employe Dorrell Thelander. Attached as Employes' Exhibit B is a copy of Bulletin No. 9.
Effective with the assignment of Derrell Thelander, the rate of Position No. 14 was increased in the amount of $10.33 from the negotiated rate of $470.67 to $481.00 per month.
Under the provisions of the National Wage Agreement, a general increase in rates of pay of ten (10) cents per hour, effective November 1, 1956, increased the rate of Position No. 14 to $498.40 and the rate effective November 1, 1956 as furnished the organization by Assistant to Vice President,
There is attached hereto as Carrier's Exhibit I copy of letter written by Mr. S. W. Amour, Assistant to Vice President, to Mr. H. V. Gilligan, General Chairman, under date of April 3, 1963.
OPINION OF BOARD: Carrier paid one Dorrell Thompson, occupant on Head Price Clerk Position No. 14, the amount of Ten Dollars and Thirtythree Cents ($10.33) more than the negotiated rate of pay established for that position, from April 11, 1956 through July, 1957. In July of 1957, Thompson left the position and thereafter the later occupants of that position were paid the negotiated rate.
The Employes contend that when the Carrier unilaterally increased the rate of pay to the first occupant of the position, its action made the increase a part of the rate for the position and thereby established a new position. It asserts that the Carrier could not later reduce the rate except through mutual agreement or negotiation.
The Employes further point to Rule 16 as support for its position that inasmuch as rating of employes is illegal, the Board should sustain the Claim.
The Carrier basically contends that the increase of pay to Thompson was a gratuity which could be unilaterally withdrawn. It further urges that the claim be denied for the reason that it is not claimed by the Employes that the payment of the gratuity constituted a violation of the Agreement.
The record shows that the duties of the position have remained basically unchanged since its inception, and no contention is made by either party that duties have been added to or subtracted from the position.
While the record does not reveal the exact reason for the increase of $10.33 to the occupant of the position in 1956, it is clear that there was no contractual obligation which required the Carrier to increase the pay. The conclusion must be that the increase was a gratuitous action on the part of the Carrier which could be withdrawn by it at a later time. Award No. 13217.
It must be the further conclusion that the payment of the sum of $10.33 to the occupant of the position for fifteen months, did not establish a new position thereby requiring the Carrier to pay a different rate for the position than the negotiated rate. The obligation to pay wage rates is imposed upon the Carrier through mutual agreement by the Parties resulting in a negotiated rate. This obligation continues unless changed by negotiation. In this area, the Board is without jurisdiction.
It should be clearly understood that the finding in this case is not based upon the Carrier's contention that the claim is barred because "successor or successors" are unnamed claimants. National Disputes Committee Decision No. 19 and other Awards of this Board (14088) have disposed of that issue and it is the finding that the Carrier's contention is without support.
We conclude, therefore, that under all the circumstances presented, the agreement was not violated, and the claim must be denied.