THIRD DIVISION
(Supplemental)
BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY, AIRLINE AND STEAMSHIP
CLERKS, FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS AND
STATION EMPLOYES
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood (GL-6415) that:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: This dispute is between the Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes as the representative of the class or craft of employes in which the claimant in this case holds position and the Southern Railway Company.
Mr. G. H. Arrington is carried on the Southern Railway System-Eastern Lines-Atlanta Division, Seniority Roster-Group 1 Clerks, with a seniority date of April 1, 1943. He at the time of this claim had been an employe of the Southern Railway Company for approximately 22 years.
Mr. Arrington holds the position of Chief Clerk to Superintendent of Terminals, Inman Yard, Atlanta, Georgia. Part of his assigned preponderating duties are to "Must make payrolls and the necessary statements pertaining thereto." He prepared the payrolls for yard employes for a number of years, and on many occasions worked his rest days to do so.
On June 25, 19015, the Atlanta Freight Agency employes were moved with their work from the downtown Spring Street location to Inman Yards.
OPINION OF BOARD: The issue herein is whether or not Carrier Violated the Agreement when it permitted Freight Agency Chief Clerk Heflin to make the payroll of yard office employes.
The petitioner claims that the work of preparing the payroll of yard office employes is work that is assigned by bulletin to Claimant; that Chief Clerk Heflin was used by Carrier to perform this work in violation of Rule 30 of the Agreement for the sole purpose of depriving Claimant of overtime work; that there was not a consolidation of the freight agency employes and the yard employes even though said employes work in the same building; that no notice of a desire to consolidate was given by Carrier as required by Rule 14 and Memorandum of Understanding of July 25, 1957.
The Carrier's position is that bulletining of preponderating duties of a position does not require that all the duties thereof be listed in the bulletin; that the Carrier has the prerogative of utilizing employes to perform work other than that specifically listed in the vacancy bulletins; that Claimant does not have the exclusive right to said work because one of Claimant's bulletined preponderating duties is to make payrolls and necessary statements pertaining thereto; that there was not a consolidation of office or departments as contemplated by Rule 14 or the Memorandum of Understanding of July 25, 1957; that by long standing past practice some of the lower rated work has been performed by a higher rated employe in the same seniority district under Rule 46(a) without penalty payment.
The Organization contends that the sole issue herein is whether or not Carrier violated Rule 30 of the Agreement, and alleges that Carrier did so when it assigned to an employe of one department, namely, freight agency department, work of another employe in another department, namely, the yard department.
Therefore, we must determine whether or not an employe was required to suspend work during his regular hours as prohibited by said Rule 30 of the Agreement.
First, in regard to Claimant's contention that the bulletining of Claimant's position reserves to him the exclusive right to prepare the payroll of yard office employes, this Board held in Award No. 13195 that a bulletin by its nature is informational, not contractual, and found of no force or effect the bulletin evidence offered to describe work giving rise to an exclusive contractual right. See also Award No. 16802.
This Board in Award No. 16611, involving a similar rule as here, defined the meaning of "to suspend work during regular hours" as the holding out of
service of an employe during his regular assigned hours to evade payment of the overtime rate penalties prescribed in the Forty Hour Week Agreement.
Also, in said Award No. 16611, this Board considered a rule (Rule 17) similar to Rule 46(a) urged by Carrier herein as authorizing Carrier to have some work of a lower rated position performed by a higher rated employe, and the Board held:
Inasmuch as Claimant failed to introduce any evidence of losing overtime work, and not finding Carrier guilty of violating said Rule 30, or any other rule of the Agreement, we are compelled to deny the claim.
Further, there was not a consolidation of departments within the intent and meaning of Rule 14 and the Memorandum of Understanding of July 25, 1957, and therefore Carrier was not required to give any advance notice as set forth therein. At most, there was a temporary assignment by Carrier of the freight agency Chief Clerk to perform some of the duties of Chief Yard Clerk, both within the same seniority district.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving the parties to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon, and 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