TRANSPORTATION-COMMUNICATION EMPLOYEES UNION
(Formerly The Order of Railroad Telegraphers)
three interlocking towers manned by employes under the Telegraphers' Agreement, The tower with which we are concerned in the instant dispute is the largest, and is designated as K Tower.
Prior to June 15, 1958, the positions (all 7-day positions) in the various classifications at K Tower were as follows:
The force was evenly distributed, providing the same number of positions in each classification on each of the three shifts covering 24 hours. The shifts changed at 7:00 A. M.; 3:00 P. M.; and 11:00 P. M. There were two Train Directors on each shift. Due to a division of territory and duties, the Train Director handling the movements to and from Tracks 1 to 12, inclusive, where B&O trains are predominant, is designated as B&O Train Director. The Train Director handling movements to and from Tracks 13 to 30, inclusive, where PRR trains are predominant, is designated as the PRR or Low Level Train Director. The positions in K Tower are all 7-day positions, and several rest day relief positions are necessary to perform the rest day relief work.
ment of the Assistant Train Director positions at K Tower. (The Train Master's reply dated December 27, 1958 is attached as Exhibit H.) Under date of February 13, 1959, Local Chairman Wicklein replied to the Train Master's letter of December 27, 1958, and notified the Train Master that he was referring the matter to General Chairman Rapp for further handling. (Copy of Local Chairman Wicklein's letter of February 13, 1959 is attached as Exhibit I.)
Under date of February 18, 1959, the General Chairman appealed the Train Master's decision in the alleged claim covered in Local Chairman Wicklein's letter of October 31, 1958. (Copy of the General Chairman's letter and attachment included as Exhibit J.)
It was mutually agreed that conference for the purpose of discussing the General Chairman's appeal would be held April 22, 1959. The Carrier's position with respect to the discussions in conference and the Manager's denial of the appeal is contained in the Carrier's letter dated April 30, 1959 (copy attached as Exhibit K). Two months later, the General Chairman wrote acknowledging receipt of the Manager's letter of April 30, 1959, and for the first time identified the claimants covered by the alleged appeal submitted by Local Chairman Wicklein under date of October 31, 1958. (Copy of the General Chairman's letter of June 30, 1959, is attached as Exhibit L.) Nothing further was heard from the Organization until the Carrier received a copy of the Organization's notice to the Board of its intention to file an ex parte submission in the dispute listed in the "Employes' Statement of Claim."
In the meantime, the Organization, under date of July 30, 1958, had served notice on the Carrier of the desire of the Organization to amend the current agreement by adding the following:
The parties did not come to agreement, and under date of May 19, 1959, the National Mediation Board docketed the dispute as Case A-6010 and stated that a mediator would be assigned as soon as possible, consistent with prior committments. (Copy of the Organization's notice is attached as Exhibit M.) To date nothing further has been heard from the National Mediation Board.
OPINION OF BOARD: Effective June 15, 1958, Carrier abolished, among others, positions of first, second and third shift Assistant Train Director at K Tower, Washington, D. C., and assigned their duties to the first, second and third shift "B&0 Train Directors" at the K Tower, to be performed in addition to their regular duties. Commencing on June 15 and continuing through October 25, various tower employes filed individual time claims for alleged dual service. None of these claims as they appear in the record stated what part of the Agreement was claimed to have been violated, and each appears to have been based on a single occurrence on the day for which the claim was made. Each of these claims was timely denied by Carrier. On October 31, 1958, Local Chairman Wicklein addressed a letter to Carrier's Train Master as follows:
Carrier argued on the property that this letter was a fresh claim, and not an appeal of the June 15 through October 25 time claims, and that, since it was based on the abolishment on June 15 of the three ATD positions, it was filed too late to be considered on its merits under Article 21 of the Agreement, which requires that claims be presented within 60 days from the date of the occurrence on which the claim is based.
Employes argued on the property that the October 31 letter was an appeal of the June 15 through October 25 time claims and that, in any case, the claims were of a continuing nature, beginning on June 15, and continuing until the violations would be corrected.
The October 31 letter does not hold itself out to be an appeal of the individual time claims, nor does its text specifically mention those claims at all. In addition, it introduces as its basic complaint such new and changed substance (the alleged breach of Articles 28 and 29 by the abolishment of the three ADT positions without negotiation with and written notice to the Employes) that its disposition by discussion of the parties would have to be as of a different claim from the individual time claims. We find that the October 31 letter was not an appeal of the individual time claims and that it was a new claim based on the abolishment of the three ADT positions on June 15.
We have dealt with the argument that a claim based on the alleged improper abolishment of positions and the consequences thereof sets up a continuing claim in a number of our awards, among them Award Numbers 10532, 11167, 12045, 12984, 14131, 14450 and 14826. These awards hold uniformerly that the occurrence on which the claim in each case was based was the abolishment of the position, which took place on only the one date and, while "A continuing liability might result, this does not create a continuing claim." (Award 11167.) This claim was based on the abolishment of positions on June 15; it was filed on October 31. The Claim was thus not filed within the time limits required by Article 21, and we will not consider it on its merits.
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