TRANSPORTATION-COMMUNICATION EMPLOYEES UNION
(Formerly The Order of Railroad Telegraphers)
Mr. Hunsucker does not in any way handle this traffic and has nothing to do with it. All the work in connection with this traffic is performed by REA employes. Anything Mr. Hunsucker has to do with railroad cars he does in his capacity as a railroad employe and not as an express agent, Since commission agents are entitled to receive commission only on business originating at or destined to their offices which they handle, and since the traffic in question here originates within the limits of the Gainesville office and is handled solely by Gainesville employes, Mr. Hunsucker is not entitled to the commission claimed.
On September 25, 1963, General Manager Ridlehoover conferred with Mr. Watson and advised him that the joint agency at Flowery Branch would be separated and an exclusive agency established as this would be an even more efficient method of handling the large volume of Georgia Shoe traffic than the previous method employed which was handling the traffic through the Gainesville office by extending the pickup and delivery limits of Gainesville to include the Georgia Shoe Company. On September 27, 1963, General Manager Ridlehoover wrote to Mr. Watson confirming their conference:
Our business has increased tremendously from the Flowery Branch area during the past several months because of incentive rates we have established and traffic surveys conducted by shippers. Exclusive representation as we propose to establish in lieu of the joint arrangement is essential to meet service requirements and otherwise care for the business to meet customer needs.
On October 2, 1963, Mr. Watson wrote to General Manager Ridlehoover acknowledging his letter of September 16, 1963.
On November 22, 1963, the claim was appealed to the Board by Mr. G. E. Leighty, President of The Order of Railroad Telegraphers.
OPINION OF BOARD: H. M. Hunsucker was Joint Agent for the Southern Railroad Company and the Railway Express Agency, Inc. at Flowery Branch, Georgia. At this location, the Georgia Shoe Company operated a manufacturing plant, but it shipped shoes largely by truck. The shoe company was persuaded to change its method of shipment to express beginning October 23, 1962, contingent upon the Express Agency's ability to handle the traffic by that date.
The initial plan was to have Mr. Hunsucker arrange for the Flowery Branch agency to provide pick up and delivery service from the Georgia Shoe Company. After reconsideration, it was decided to extend the pick up and delivery service of the Gainesville, Georgia office a full time agency staffed by salaried personnel, to include the Georgia Shoe Company.
Claim is made in behalf of Joint Agent Hunsucker at Flowery Branch, Georgia, that Carrier violated Article XI and the intent of the Agreement when it permitted the Gainesville, Georgia office of the Railway Express Agency to handle the business that originated at Flowery Branch, Georgia, and thus deprived him of commissions to which he was entitled. It takes the position that since Mr. Hunsucker solicited the business, even incurred same expenses in securing it, and since traditionally the Flowery Branch office handled all business originating or terminating from the various patrons around that location, the business from the Georgia Shoe Company should be restored to the Flowery Branch office for handling.
Carrier's contention that the Board lacks jurisdiction is without merit. See Awards 298, 548, 13164, 14580 and 14630.
Other than these conditions, the Rule does not prohibit or restrict Carrier from operating or discontinuing the handling of traffic from a joint express agency. Moreover, this Article does not require agreement of the parties on the changes. In the interest of efficient and economical operation of its business, Carrier chose the Gainesville agency rather than the joint agency at Flowery Branch to handle the shipments of the Georgia Shoe Company. Petitioner has not shown that the joint agent at Flowery Branch had the exclusive right under the contract or by custom, practice, or tradition to handle the work in question. Although Mr. Hunsucker may have been disappointed in losing commissions he anticipated, the Agreement does not insure that an agent at a joint agency will have stated amount of business. In addition, the record does not give evidence that Carrier arbitrarily made the change to deprive Agent Hunsucker of his commissions. Since the Agreement was not violated, the claim is denied.
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