THIRD DIVISION
(Supplemental)
(a) The Pacific Car Demurrage Bureau violated the Agreement between the parties at Los Angeles, California, when it failed and refused to reclassify four (4) Demurrage Clerk positions to Head Demurrage Clerk; and,
(b) The Pacific Car Demurrage Bureau shall now be required to allow Miss Esther Joseph and Messrs. 0. R. Bodle, C. W. Westerman and L. J. Fleck, their substitutes and/or successors, the difference in pay rate between Demurrage Clerk and Head Demurrage Clerk beginning sixty (60) days from date claim received and continuing until claim is allowed; and,
(c) The Pacific Car Demurrage Bureau violated the Agreement between the parties at Los Angeles, California, when it failed and refused to adjust demurrage clerk rates at Los Angeles to rates in effect at Phoenix, Arizona; and,
(d) The Pacific Car Demurrage Bureau shall now be required to allow the following employes, their substitutes and/or successors,
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: There is in evidence an Agreement bearing effective date November 14, 1940, including revisions (hereinafter referred to as the Agreement), between the Pacific Car Demurrage Bureau (hereinafter referred to as the Bureau), and its employes represented by the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes (hereinafter referred to as the Employes), which Agreement is on file with this Board and by reference thereto is hereby made a part of this dispute.
Prior to June 13, 1958, the Bureau maintained a District office at Los Angeles from which the demurrage work performed by Bureau employes at the Pacific Electric Railway, Union Pacific, Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe, Los Angeles Junction, and Southern Pacific Company, was supervised.
The District office was discontinued effective June 13, 1958. Thereafter, Demurrage Clerks Bodle, Westerman, Joseph and Fleck were required to supervise clerks formerly supervised by District Manager Sherwood and Travelling Supervisor Scott, from the District Office.
Attesting thereto is letter by Local Chairman Cornett, attached hereto and identified as Employes' Exhibit A.
By letter dated May 15, 1962, Local Chairman Homer Cornett filed claim with Bureau's Assistant Manager, Mr. R. C. Baker, attached herewith and identified as Employes' Exhibit B.
The claim was then appealed by General Chairman James E. Weaver to Mr. C. J. Crittenden, Manager, and ranking Bureau officer delegated to handle disputes of this nature.
By letter dated May 15, 1962 (Bureau's Exhibit A), a Homer M. Cornett on Brotherhood of Railway Clerks' letterhead representing himself as Petitioner's Division Chairman and the employes' representative, a self appointment not confirmed to the Bureau by Petitioner's General Chairman, submitted on appeal to the Bureau's Assistant Manager a claim on behalf of claimants in paragraph (b) of the above statement of claim for difference in rate of pay between head demurrage clerk and demurrage clerk retroactive 60 days from date of receipt of his letter, contending that the claimants named, paragraph (a) of the above statement of claim, were acting in capacity of head demurrage clerks. Also, in that letter claim was submitted in behalf of claimants named in paragraph (d) of the statement of claim for the difference in rate of pay of positions of demurrage clerk at Los Angeles and that of demurrage clerks at Phoenix, Arizona, Petitioner alleging that the claimants named in paragraph (b) of the statement of claim were entitled to same rate of pay received by demurrage clerks at Phoenix and that the rates of pay at Phoenix should govern rate of pay of all demurrage clerks in accordance with Rule 5 of the current agreement.
With respect to the propriety of Homer Cornett's alleged right to represent the Bureau's employes as Petitioner's Local Chairman at the locations involved, it will be noted the Bureau was unable to secure from Petitioner's General Chairman confirmation of Mr. Cornett's appointment as Local Chairman. This is clearly evident in an exchange of correspondence between the Bureau's Assistant Manager and Petitioner's General Chairman, which is contained in the Bureau's Exhibit B.
By letter dated June 29, 1962 (Bureau's Exhibit C), the Bureau's Assistant Manager denied the claim, without prejudice to the Bureau's position that Homer M. Cornett was not the employes' duly designated representative, advising that the claim had no merit in that rates paid employes at the Bureau's Los Angeles Office were consistent with duties and responsibilities comprehended in the classification of the positions involved for which said rates of pay were established at Los Angeles. Also, the Bureau pointed out that the difference in rates of pay for demurrage clerks at Los Angeles and Phoenix has existed for many years, and there is no basis for the claim presented that said rates at Phoenix be applicable to demurrage clerks at Los Angeles.
By letter dated July 21, 1962 (Bureau's Exhibit D), Petitioner's General Chairman appealed the claim to the Bureau's Manager incorporating the self-appointed Local Chairman's letter therein (see Bureau's Exhibit A), as part of the appeal. By letter dated July 27, 1962 (Bureau's Exhibit E), the Bureau's Manager denied the claim, reiterating what was said by the Assistant Manager in his denial to the so-called Local Chairman.
OPINION OF BOARD: Paragraph (a) of the Claim alleges that Carrier violated the Agreement when it failed and refused to reclassify four Demurrage Clerk positions to Head Demurrage Clerk. The upward rate adjustment for the four positions, prayed for in paragraph (b) of the Claim and the prayer for reclassification, is predicated upon an alleged increase in duties. Assuming, arguendo, there was an increase in duties as alleged, we find no Rule in the Agreement that provides for pay adjustments because of increased duties or responsibilities. In Award 9307 we held and now affirm:
See, also, Award Nos. 7083, 11574, 12672 and 13931. Cf. Award No. 15058. We will deny paragraphs (a) and (b) of the Claim.
Paragraphs (c) and (d) of the Claim constitute a naked request that we award a wage increase in the absence of a showing that the Agreement has been violated. Such is not within our jurisdiction. We will deny paragraphs (c) and (d) of the Claim.
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