THIRD DIVISION
(Supplemental)
TRANSPORTATION-COMMUNICATION EMPLOYEES UNION
(Formerly The Order of Railroad Telegraphers)
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Q Office, DeQuincy, Louisiana, is located on the DeQuincy Division. Prior to October 10, 1963, there was continuous service. Q Office is designated by the Agreement as within the Relay Seniority District, which is separate and distinct from the Line Seniority District. At this same location, although in another office, was a negotiated Star Agent position assigned to the DeQuincy Line Seniority roster. These two offices and positions were distinctly segregated by Agreement between the parties.
On May 11, 1963, the Carrier began removing portions of the equipment in Q Office and installing the equipment in the Line Seniority Office at Kinder, Louisiana. A protest was lodged with the Carrier that it would be a violation of the Agreement to interlock the Relay and Line Seniority positions at DeQuincy, and that the matter was negotiable under the Agreement.
On October 10, 1963, Carrier reclassified the Star Agent position, a Line Seniority position, to that of Star Agent Telegrapher, and interlocked this position with the Manager's position in Q Office, a Relay Seniority position. Carrier also declared abolished the Relay positions and issued Line Seniority bulletins for a second shift position, a third shift position, and a swing position, relieving the Agent-Telegrapher on Sunday. All of this was unilaterally done by the Carrier.
Claim was instituted on the basis that the position in Q Office were Relay Seniority, whereas the Agent's position was Line Seniority, and the Carrier could not unilaterally interlock the two Seniority Districts without mutual agreement.
The claim was appealed to the highest officer designated by the Carrier, and declined by him.
1. This dispute involves the application of an Agreement between the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company and the employes thereof on the Gulf District represented by The Order of Railroad Telegraphers which became effective March 1, 1952, copies of which are on file with your Board. The Agreement is by reference made a part of Carrier's submission.
2. This dispute resulted from the Carrier's elimination of the Q Relay Office at DeQuincy, Louisiana, DeQuincy Division, effective October 9, 1963.
19. The Employes have refused to accept the facts in this dispute, and in doing so are contending that Relay Telegraphers have an exclusive right to handle train orders as opposed to Division Telegraphers even in the face of practice to the contrary. There has never been any contention that Relay District telegrapher positions should be established at way stations instead of Division telegrapher positions which in itself is recognition that relay telegraphers are primarily for relay work and when relay work disappears the relay positions must follow suit.
OPINION OF BOARD: Prior to October 1963 Carrier's Q office, DeQuincy, Louisiana, designated in the parties Agreement as within the Relay Seniority District, handled relaying of telegraph messages. By October 1963, the Carrier had equipped each station in the territory with Direct Circuits for contact with GC office in Houston. Carrier then declared the Q office was no longer needed as a relay point, removed relay equipment, abolished relay positions at that location, and put out bulletins for telegraphers under the Line Seniority roster to handle remaining local messages and train orders. At the same time Carrier reclassified a Star Agent position on the Line Seniority roster to that of Star Agent Telegrapher.
Organization claims that the Relay Seniority District is separate and distinct from the Line Seniority District under the Agreement between the parties. It argues that since Q office positions were Relay Seniority and agents' positions were Line Seniority the Carrier could not unilaterally interlock the two seniority districts without mutual consent. To do so it asserted would
violate Rule 4 (d) by requiring work at a less favorable rate, and Rule 18 (c) by changing a seniority district without agreement of the parties.
Carrier claims the right to abolish unnecessary positions, without prior agreement of the Organization. This it asserts was what occurred in the instant case and thus was not violative of any provisions of the parties' Agreement. It concludes that the elimination of the relay work justified the performance of remaining tasks by telegraphers on Line Seniority.
It is clear in the parties Agreement that Carrier has the right to abolish positions without the prior consent of the Organization. In this case the Carrier had improved the method of transmitting messages directly to Houston; had taken away the equipment formerly used in relay work, and had done away with the need for employes to do relay work. It acted within its contractual authority in abolishing the relay positions.
The essential question is whether Carrier had the right to unilaterally assign the remaining work of handling local messages and train orders to employes on the Line Seniority District roster when this work had formerly been done by employes in the Relay Seniority District.
We are unconvinced by Organization's arguments that Carrier violated the parties' Agreement. There is no evidence that the Scope Rule was violated. All work under examination was to be performed by employes covered by the Telegraphers' Agreement. Furthermore there is nothing in the agreement reserving relaying of local messages and train orders exclusively to employes on the Relay District roster. Similarly we find no violation of Rule 38 which merely lists rates of pay and classifications, which this Board has held is not intended to guarantee the perpetuation of the positions listed therein.
Turning to Organization's allegation of a violation of Rule 4 (d) we find that Carrier is required to obtain mutual agreement upon changes in classification or changes in work when such changes would result in establishing less favorable rates of pay or conditions of employment than are established by the parties' Agreement. In the instant situation the change involved was the elimination of relay tasks, leaving the handling of local messages and train orders as the work to be performed. We are convinced that Carrier provided the appropriate conditions of employment at the appropriate rates of pay for the work involved. Payment at Relay Position rates was not appropriate since the work did not involve relaying messages. The conditions and rates of pay were as required by the parties' Agreement for the tasks performed and there has been no showing that they were "less favorable." Accordingly the Carrier was under no obligation to obtain mutual agreement for the changes involved.
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;