THIRD DIVISION
(Supplemental)
CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE, ST. PAUL AND PACIFIC
RAILROAD COMPANY
On January 15, 1965, Mr. W. J. Hamann, General Car Supervisor, issued a bulletin to all employes in the seniority district here involved (No. 30) wherein he advertised a new position of chief yard clerk at Bensenville, i.e., Position No. 475. The rate of pay applied to newly created Chief Yard Clerk Position No. 475, i.e., $25.0304 per day, was established in conformity with the rate of Chief Yard Clerk Position No. 0390 at Western Avenue, which is, as shown above, a position of similar kind or class in the same seniority district. In other words, the rate of newly created Chief Yard Clerk Position No. 475 was established strictly in accordance with the provisions of aforequoted Rule 18.
OPINION OF BOARD: The issue in this case is whether Carrier complied with the provisions of Rule 18 in setting a rate for a new position. Rule 18 reads:
Brotherhood contends that new position number 475, Chief Yard Clerk at Bensenville involved duties and responsibilities such that no other chief clerk position in the seniority district was similar enough so that the rate might be set under the first sentence of Rule 18, and that, therefore, Carrier should have negotiated the rate for the new position with the General Chairman, as required by the second sentence of Rule 18.
The only evidence in the record that the new position was not similar to other chief clerk positions in the seniority district is in the Bulletin posting the position; there the "Brief List of Principal Duties" includes, in addition to duties identical with some of the other chief clerk positions in the seniority district, "supervising . . the Industrial Control Center during tour of duty . ·"; there is no description of this duty, nor comparison of it to other duties of the other positions. Particularly in the face of Carriers more detailed and specific comparison to show similarities of the duties of the new position to already existing chief clerk positions in the seniority district which Carrier recited to Brotherhood on the property, this evidence of difference is not sufficient to convince us that the new position's duties were so dissimilar as to require that the rate should have been established according to the second sentence of Rule 18. The burden of proving the facts to establish its claim was the Brotherhood's, and it was not sustained.
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;