PARTIES TO DISPUTE

TRANSPORTATION-COMMUNICATION EMPLOYEES UNION

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD-EASTERN DISTRICT


STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Transportation-Communication Employees Union on the Union Pacific Railroad (Eastern District), that:














EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: The Agreement between the parties effective November 1, 1962, as amended and supplemented, is available to your Board and by this reference is made a part hereof.



The handling on the property of the dispute involving the Agent-Telegrapher's rate of pay at Ord, Nebraska is set forth in the following letters between representatives of the Organization and representatives of the Carrier:





The handling on this property of the dispute involving the Agent-Telegrapher's rate of pay at Papillion, Nebraska is set forth in the following letters between representatives of the Organization and the Carrier:







OPINION OF BOARD: On October 15, 1965, Carrier discontinued operation of its motor freight line through Ovid, Colorado, resulting in the elimination of the handling of cream and express at that point. On May 3, 1966, Railway Express Agency removed handling of express at Carrier's station, Ord, Nebraska, and transferred the handling of such express shipments to Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad Station, Ord, Nebraska. This transfer was allegedly brought about because of this Carrier's discontinuance of motor freight service to Ord. On April 29, 1966, Carrier discontinued motor freight operation to Papillion, Nebraska, resulting in discontinuance of the handling of express at that point.


In each instance, the agent-telegrapher was paid a commission, in addition to his regular railroad wages for the handling of such express shipments, and at Ovid, cream shipments. Loss of these commissions resulted in substantial reduction of compensation for the occupants of the positions. The Organization requested an upward adjustment in basic hourly wage rate for each position. Reliance was placed on Rule 18, which provides:



17686 6

Rule 18 (a) is clear and unambiguous in its requirement that 'it has been recognized that the commissions received operated to influence the rate downward." This rule is different from rules in other agreements wherein the right to wage adjustment is bottomed upon comparison with similar positions. The Organization contended, during handling on the property, that wage adjustments made many years ago proved that wage rates of the points involved were influenced downward because of receipt of commissions. Carrier contended that such rates did not prove the point.


We agree that the rule requires proof to show that the agreed-to wage rates were lower because the occupant of the positions received such commissions. The record has been examined carefully and we do not find such evidence. The mere fact that wage adjustments were made, from time to time, and that rate of a position was increased and rate of another position was not increased would not, standing alone, constitute probative evidence that commissions were the responsible factors.


It is axiomatic that the burden is upon the petitioner to support its claims with sufficient probative evidence; having failed to do so, we have no alternative but to deny the claims for lack of proof.


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;


That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and














Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of January 1970.

 Central Publishing Co., Indianapolis, Ind. 46206 Printed in U.S.A.

 17686 7