(1) The Carrier violated the terms of the currently effective agreement between the parties when beginning on December 8, 1965, employes of other crafts were assigned work of handling mail and baggage and sorting and making delivery of United States Mail to mail trucks at Fort Scott, Kansas, in violation of the Scope Rule of the Clerks' Agreement.
(2) L. B. Coiner now be allowed a two hour call at the time and one-half rate of Clerk-Caller position on each date, December 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 25, 26, 27, 31, 1965; a total of twelve (12) days.
(3) J. D. Johnson now be allowed a two hour call at the time and one-half rate of the Clerk-Caller position on each date December 8, 13, 14, 15, 20, 21, 22, 27, 28, 1965; January 3, 4, 5, 11, 24, 25, 26, 1966; February 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, 16, 21 and 22, 1966; a total of twenty-six (26) days.
(4) H. R. Lyell now be allowed a two hour call at the time and one-half rate of Clerk-Caller position on each date December 9, 16, 23, 24, 28, 30, 1965; January 6, 13, 19, 20, 27, 31, 1966; February 1, 2, 3, 10, 17 and 24, 1966; a total of eighteen (18) days.
(5) Fred Jackson now be allowed a two hour call at the time and one-half rate of Clerk-Caller position on each date December 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 29, 30, 31, 1965; January 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 22, 23 and 27, 1966; a total of twenty-six (26) days.
The handling of mail and baggage at Fort Scott was causing delay to the Carrier's first-class passenger trains, and the U. S. Post Office Depart-
ment was complaining about (1) the delay of U. S. Mail moving to and from such passenger trains at Fort Scott, and (2) the delay in sorting and making delivery thereof to U. S. Mail trucks at that point. See Carrier's Exhibit A, attached hereto.
In order to stop such delay, the Carrier instructed the telegraphers and train porters to assist in the handling of the mail and baggage. See Carrier's Exhibit A-1, attached hereto.
The Organization takes the position that the use of telegraphers and train porters to assist clerks in the handling of mail and baggage violates the terms of the current Clerks' Agreement.
OPINION OF BOARD: On December 2, 1965, the Carrier assigned telegraphers and train porters to assist in the handling of mail and baggage to and from Passenger Trains Nos. 101-102 and in the sorting and delivery of U. S. Mail to the U. S. mail truck at Fort Scott, Kansas. Employes covered by the Clerks' Agreement at Fort Scott bad exclusively performed this work for as long as there has been any record, giving rise to the instant claim.
The Organization contends that the claimants have an exclusive right to this work, and have been the only ones to perform it at Fort Scott. It points out that the system-wide-exclusivity doctrine must bear in mind the custom, practice and tradition at the particular point under consideration, which, when as clear as here, would require sustaining the claim.
The Carrier acknowledges that exclusivity has been shown regarding the work in dispute at this location, but argues that the well established principle of this Board has been to require a system wide showing of exclusivity, which has not been the practice in work of this type.
This Board has in many cases considered the question of whether exclu sivity should be applied on system wide or an individual location basis. We have examined the several awards cited to support the latter view, but find them unconvincing in the light of the majority of awards by this Board embracing the concept of system wide exclusivity.
We see no reason to overturn that reasoning. Inasmuch as the Organization has been unable to demonstrate system wide exclusivity in the handling of U. S. Mail, the claim must be 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
LABOR MEMBER'S DISSENT TO AWARD 16356,
DOCKET CL-16743
In various Awards this Board has held that recognition of a practice at the particular location rather than the practice elsewhere should govern and has required such evidence. Clearly, such recognition is in line with the time honored principle that the "specific" controls over the "general."
In various other Awards, such as 15011, this Board has adopted the sound logic that where two interpretations are possible, the one which would lead to an absurd result should not be chosen.
Award 16356, Docket CIr16743, results in an Award in exact opposition to the sound and logical principles noted above, and when viewed in light of the many variables, the Board made exceptions, etc., represents invocation of an impossible test to deny employes of their right to work which they have earned under their Agreement. I therefore dissent.