NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
John H. Dorsey, Referee
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
TRANSPORTATION-COMMUNICATION EMPLOYEES UNION
(Formerly The Order of Railroad Telegraphers)
MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
Claim of the General Committee of The
Order of Railroad Telegraphers on the Missouri Pacific Railroad that:
1. Carrier violated the Agreement between the parties when
on June 15, 1961, it required employes not covered by the Telegraphers' Agreement to perform work previously performed by Agents
at the following stations:
Mer Route, Louisiana
Epps, Louisiana
Oak Grove, Louisiana
Waterproof, Louisiana
Delhi, Louisiana
Sondheimer, Louisiana
Wilmot, Arkansas
and
Parkdale, Arkansas
2. Carrier shall compensate a senior idle extra employe, 8 hours
each day, for each location when this work is performed outside the
Agreement, or in the absence of an extra employe, shall compensate
the employe assigned each station 3 hours at the pro rata rate on
a call basis.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: There is in effect an Agreement between the parties with rules effective September 1, 1949, and wage
schedules effective February 1, 1951. Listed at page 45 of the Agreement
are the positions at the various locations in paragraph 1 of the Statement
of Claim. All of these positions were one-man stations at the time this
claim arose on June 15, 1961, and all of the agency work at these stations
was covered by the Telegraphers' Agreement and performed by the Agent
assigned under this Agreement.
By notice of June 9, 1961, the Carrier transferred part of the agency
work that had formerly been performed by the Agents at these locations to
Without waiving the position expressed above, we understand
the facts in this situation to be as follows: Effective June 15, 1961,
in order to expedite the handling of LCL freight destined for
delivery at the above named stations, the freight bills are prepared
at Monroe or Alexandria, Louisiana, instead of destination. The
MPFT truck company delivers the freight from Monroe or Alexandria to the consignee at other locations on the delivery receipt,
turns over the original waybill and original freight bill to the Agent
who assigns pro numbers and makes the necessary reports. Thus the
work which is the subject of this dispute is the expensing of LCL
freight bills at Monroe or Alexandria for shipments moving over
the highway from those points via MPFT trucks for delivery to
small stations.
The handling of these shipments from Monroe and Alexandria
for delivery to destination was under the jurisdiction and control
of the MPFT Company and the work incident thereto is not work to
which the telegraphers have an exclusive right. There has not been
a violation of your agreement. These claims are without merit and are
respectfully declined.
Without in any manner waiving the position expressed above, it
is also our position that claims must be limited to the actual loss
suffered, that the claims must be limited to the actual amount of
work involved in expensing freight bills and that in any eventuality, it cannot be shown that anyone suffered any loss for the reason that even if it could be said this is work which should have
been performed at the delivery station, it would have been performed by someone already on duty and under pay, and no additional force or expense would be involved.
Yours truly,
/s/ B. W. Smith"
OPINION OF BOARD:
Petitioner contends that Carrier's action in
(changing the method of preparing freight bills covering interline LCL shipments destined to the stations identified in the Statement of Claim violated
',the agreement.
Prior to June 15, 1961, freight bills covering interline LCL shipments,
delivered by truck to the involved stations, were prepared by the Agents
.at those stations. Effective June 15, 1961, the Carrier had these freight bills
prepared by clerical forces at the two central points where the shipments
were put aboard the trucks.
For some time prior to June 15, 1961, freight bills covering local LCL
,shipments were prepared as a part of the billing process at the originating
station without complaint from the Organization.
It appears to us the Carrier's action was no different than when it
.changed, with identical effect, the method of preparing freight bills covering
local LCL shipments.
Failure of the Employes to show a distinguishing difference between
preparation of local and interline freight bills, which infringes on
their rights,
15161 6
requires a finding that they have failed to
meet the
burden of establishing a
sound basis for a sustaining award. We will deny 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
That no violation of the agreement is shown.
AWARD
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of THIRD DIVISION
ATTEST: S. H. Schulty
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 20th day of January 1967.
Keenan Printing Co., Chicago, Ill.
Printed in U.S.A,
15161