NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood (GL-6668) that:
EMPLOYE'S STATEMENT OF FACTS: For many years prior to June 23, 1967, the Carrier maintained two Class II positions of Messenger at East St. Louis, Illinois, and the occupants of these two positions were employees subject to the scope and application of the Clerks' Agreement. These employees performed the work of delivering and picking up mail; sorting mail; operating mimeograph machine; operating postage meter; and similar work normally performed by employees in the Class II positions.
After June 23, 1967, the effective date of the abolishment of one of the Class II Messenger positions the following named employees of the Carrier, Stationery Storekeeper E. Schlemmer; Secretary to Chief Engineer and Purchasing Agent, D. Caciano; Secretary to Vice President Traffic, V. L. DeGuire; Secretary to Treasurer and Controller, I. V. Miller and Chief Engineer, M. Garcia, none of whom are subject to the scope and application of the Clerks' Agreement were permitted by the Carrier to perform various items of work which had been performed by Class II Messengers prior to the effective date of the abolishment of one of the Class II positions of Messenger, June 23, 1967.
1. The applicable Agreement between The Alton & Southern Railway Company and the Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees, effective July 9, 1967,
10. The claim was not composed on the property, and we are in receipt of the BRAC's Notice Of Intent to file the dispute with your Board.
OPINION OF BOARD: The claim alleges that the Carrier violated the Agreement when on the dates specified it permitted employes not subject to the scope and application of the Clerks' Agreement to perform work regularly assigned to employes classified as messengers in Class II under Rule 1 of the Clerks' Agreement.
While the Petitioner is not specific as to just what work it contends was performed on the dates specifed by employes "not subject to the scope and application of the Clerks' Agreement," it appears that the complaint is predicated upon work being performed by the Carrier's Stationery Storekeeper, and Secretaries to various officers, primarily in the handling of mail. The Carrier advises that all incoming and outgoing U.S. Mail comes in to the Storekeeper's office: that mail addressed to employes in the various departments is sorted, and clerks and stenographers, subject to the Clerks' Agreement, from the respective departments pick up their own mail; that outgoing or interoffice mail is deposited in the chute whenever convenient for the sender during the day. The Carrier states that no one is picking up or deliverying mail other than their own nor functioning as a messenger. The Carrier further states that occasionally, in line with past practice, the Stationery Storekeeeper sorts some mail, runs letters through the postage machine, or operates the mimeograph machine.
In handling of the dispute on the property, the Carrier advised the Claimant in part:
The above statement by the Carrier was not denied by the Petitioner in the handling of the dispute on the property, and in its submission to this Board the Petitioner states that "The Employes do not deny that on infrequent occasions, employees of the Carrier other than messengers have performed some of the work involved in this dispute."
Based upon the entire record, we are unable to find that the Petitioner has proved that employes not subject to the scope and application of the Clerks' Agreement were permitted, on the dates involved in the claim, to perform work assigned exclusively to employes classified as messengers. Furthermore, as we read Section (c) of Rule 1, the occupants of the positions complained of as performing the work are subject to the application of Rule 1-Scope and Classification-and certain other rules of the Agreement.
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;