BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY AND STEAMSHIP CLERKS, FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS AND STATION EMPLOYES
CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE, ST. PAUL AND PACIFIC
RAILROAD COMPANY
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood (GL 5723) that:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Seniority District No. 51 covers Extra Gang Timekeepers, Lines East. The January 1, 1964 roster for District No. 51 shows five employes holding seniority in that district; however, from some time in 1962 until April 21, 1964 there were no positions of extra gang Timekeeper in effect in the district.
The last such position in effect in District No. 51, according to the Employes' records, was established April 18, 1962 and was subsequently abolished without benefit of bulletin notice. Consequently, the Employes have no knowledge as to the date of abolishment other than that it was abolished some time during 1962.
Therefore, as of April 9, 1964 the negotiated rate of pay for Extra Gang Timekeeper positions was $19.5384, consequently when Extra Gang Timekeeper Position No. 2037 was bulletined on April 9, 1964 the rate of pay applied thereto was the negotiated rate of $19.5384 per day. Copy of Bulletin No. 1 dated April 9, 1964 advertising Extra Gang Timekeeper Position No. 2037 is attached hereto as Carrier's Exhibit A.
Also attached hereto as Carrier's Exhibits are copies of the following letters:
OPINION OF BOARD: Carrier's contention that the claim, in behalf of the named Claimant's "successor or successors" is improper under Article V is without merit. See Award 14088 quoting Decision 19 of the National Disputes Committee, and Award 14966 involving the present parties.
Concerning the merits, Carrier established Timekeeper position in Seniority District 51, fixing the rate of pay for the positions by taking the rate for previous such positions and bringing it up to date with subsequent general wage increases.
The Organization contends the Carrier violated Rule 18 in so fixing the rate and claims a $20.424 rate based on an alleged similar position in another seniority district.
Carrier's bulletin established the Timekeeper position as a "New position" thereby making Rule 18 applicable. In Award 15166, involving the present parties we held:
" . . Rule 18, clearly required Carrier to establish the rate of pay: (1) `in conformity with rates for positions of similar kind or class in the seniority district where created;' or, (2) in the absence of such an existing position `by agreement between the Carrier and the General Chairman.' Award Nos. 2239, 3555, 4127, 15058. Carrier failed to comply with either of these prescriptions. Consequently, it violated the Agreement."
Since the rate here fixed by the Carrier was not based on existing similar positions in the same seniority district and the rate was not otherwise established by agreement as required by Rule 18, we find that Carrier violated the Agreement as alleged in paragraph (1) of the claim.
We cannot, however, sustain paragraphs (2) and (3) of the claim. Confining ourselves to the claim as referred to the Board, as we are bound to do, the rate there claimed, which is based on the rate paid an alleged similar position in another seniority district, is contrary to Rule 18 and cannot be granted. Award 14966 involving the present parties. Further, in Award 15058, also involving the present parties, we held:
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, 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
LABOR MEMBER'S DISSENT TO AWARD 15220,
DOCKET CL-15420