BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY, AIRLINE & STEAMSHIP
CLERKS, FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS & STATION
EMPLOYES
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood (GL-6577) that:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: The facts in this case are not in dispute. At the time of this dispute Claimant Latta was the regular occupant of Chief Clerk position and Claimant Miller was the regular occupant of the Stenographer-Clerk's position in the Local Freight Office, Seniority District No. 2, Battle Creek, Michigan. Under date of February 20, 1968, the General Superintendent Equipment posted Bulletin No. 2 transferring work consisting of the handling of Staff Forms, related correspondence, payrolls and budget from Local Freight Office Seniority District No. 2 to General Superintendent Equipment Office Seniority District No. 4 (Employees' Exhibit No. 1). Under date of February 20, 1968, the General Superintendent Equipment posted Bulletin No. 3 transferring work of Typing of Material Requisitions for Cleaning Track Supplies from Local Freight Office Seniority District No. 2 to Car Department Office Seniority District No. 1 (Employees' Exhibit No. 2). Prior to March 1, 1968 aforementioned work listed in Bulletins Nos. 2 and 3 was a part of the regular work assignment on the Positions of Chief Clerk and Stenographer-Clerk in the Local Freight Office Seniority District No. 2, Battle Creek, Michigan.
Claim was filed with the General Superintendent Equipment (Employees' Exhibit No. 3) on behalf of Claimants by the General Chairman. Claim was declined by the General Superintendent Equipment (Employees' Exhibit No. 4). Appeal was filed by the General Chairman with Mr. J. w. Demcoe, Vice President and General Manager (Employees' Exhibit No. 5). Mr. Demcoe de-
ment under the terms of Article III, Section 1 of the February 7, 1965 Agreement, and that such action on the part of the Carrier was not a violation of Rules 3, 6, and 79 of the Clerks' Working Agreement.
Copies of the January 15, 1955 Working Agreement in effect between this Carrier and the Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, are on file with the Third Division.
OPINION OF BOARD: While it is suggested that Rules 3, 6, and 79 of the agreement of the parties were violated, it appears from the record that the primary contention on the property was that Section 1, of Article III of the February 7, 1965 agreement was violated by the Carrier.
The Carrier urges dismissal of this claim and bases its contention on Section 1, of Article VII of the February 7, 1965 Agreement, the pertinent parts of which reads as follows:
This Board has held that when the determination of a dispute is dependent upon the interpretation or application of the February 7, 1965 Agreement that procedures established and accepted by the parties themselves for resolving disputes under that Agreement should be respected. (see Awards 17504, 16924, 16869, and 14979)
It appears from the record that the alleged violations of Rules 3, 6 and 79, are dependent upon construction and application of Article III of the February 7, 1965 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;