(a) The Lehigh & Hudson River Railway Company (hereinafter referred to as "the Carrier"), violated the currently effective schedule agreement between the parties, Articles 1 and 7 thereof in particular, by its failure to properly compensate each of the named individual claimants for service performed on each of the dates hereinafter specified.
(b) The Carrier shall now compensate each of the following named individual claimants for the specified dates in the amount representing the difference between what they were compensated for services on said dates and the daily rate of Chief Dispatcher, $39.44 per day, said claimants and dates being as follows:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: There is an Agreement in effect between the parties, effective June 1, 1946, a copy of which is on file with this Board. The said Agreement is incorporated as a part of this Submission as though fully set out. Although some rules of the Agreement have been revised since the effective date, Articles 1 and 7 referred to in the Statement of Claim herein have not been revised (except Article 7(b) revised effective September 1, 1949) and are here quoted in full for the Board's ready reference:
existent, then rate or rates will be determined by agreement between the Management and the Committee.
(a) A train dispatcher attending court, inquests, investigations or hearings, under instructions from the Railway, will be paid for each day so held the equivalent of his regular assigned hours at pro rata rate for assigned work days and actual time not exceeding eight (8) hours at time and one-half rate for assigned rest days, and actual expenses while away from home. Fees and mileage accruing will be assigned to the Railway. This rule will not apply to a train dispatcher instructed by the Railway to attend a hearing of charges against him, and who is not exonerated of such charges.
(f) When a train dispatcher is required by Management to leave his regular headquarters for any purpose, he shall, in addition to compensation as provided for by these rules, be paid necessary expenses while away. Extra train dispatchers will be paid on the same basis at trick dispatcher's rate.
OPINION OF BOARD: Carrier maintains a Train Dispacher's office at Warwick, New York, consisting of one Chief Train Dispatcher, Trick Dispatcher, relief and extra Train Dispatchers. The Chief Train Dispatcher, whose position is excluded from the Scope of the Agreement, performs his duties with a Trick Dispatcher during the normal daytime hours. From 4:00 P. M. to 12:00 Midnight, another Trick Dispatcher is on duty by himself and from 12:00 Midnight to 8:00 A. M., the same situation prevails; that is to say, that a third Trick Dispatcher is on duty again by himself.
The Organization alleges that the duties performed by the Trick Dispatchers are those which properly should be performed as Assistant Chief or Chief Dispatcher. Stated another way, the averment is made that the duties, responsibilities and functions outlined in Article 1.(b)1 of the Agreement are being performed by Trick Dispatchers. Since there are no Assistant Chief Dispatcher positions, and no established rates therefor on the property, the Organization demands compensation on certain days representing the difference between that which the Train Dispatchers were paid and the daily rate of the Chief Dispatcher, to which they allege entitlement.
The Organization has presented us with evidence which in substance is a series of logs showing precisely the work accomplished on the days in question. The sole question, therefore, with which we are confronted, is whether or not these duties, responsibilities and functions performed, constitute in effect an assumption of the duties, responsibilities and functions of the higher rated position. There are other issues raised in this record, but the determination of the fundamental question mentioned above is dispositive of the case.
The duties of the Claimant Trick Dispatchers are outlined in Article 1(b)2 and read:
We have examined the logs of the Claimants for the specified days and conclude that from a description of the work, they were performing their normal routine function rather than those described as Chief Dispatcher functions. Evidentially speaking, the Organization has not presented us with proof sufficiently substantial to enable us to issue a sustaining award. We will deny 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;