BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY, AIRLINE AND STEAMSHIP
CLERKS, FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS AND STATION
EMPLOYES
In order that the information furnished the Carrier in conference might be a matter of record, the General Chairman again wrote Mr. Carroll on March 12, 1968 (Employes' Exhibit L) to which Mr. Carroll replied April 15, 1968 (Employes' Exhibit M). As Carrier's letter dated April 15, 1968 was silent with respect to time limits, the General Chairman again wrote Mx. Carroll April 16, 1968 (Employes' Exhibit N) to which Mr. Carroll replied on April 18, 1968 extending time limits in which to appeal to the Third Division. (Employes' Exhibit O).
On June 19, 1968, General Manager-Labor Relations Carroll wrote to the General Chairman offering to dispose of this claim by payment of one (1) hour each day from February 1, through February 7 to each claimant and the senior claimant one (1) hour each day from February 9 through 13. (Employes' Exhibit P). On July 15, 1968, the General Chairman replied to Mr. Carroll accepting the settlement proposed by the Carrier provided it was distinctly understood that at no time in the future would any of the work assigned to positions coming under the scope of the Clerks' Agreement at Bison Yard be performed by employes not covered by the agreement, unless otherwise agreed to, (Employes' Exhibit Q) to which Mr. Carroll replied July 19, 1968 (Employes' Exhibit R). In view of Carrier's reply, General Chairman wrote Mr. Carroll on September 6, 1968 rejecting the proffered settlement. (Employes' Exhibit S).
CARRIER'S STATEMENT OF FACTS: Inspectors of Operation are under the jurisdiction and report to the Superintendent of Transportation and Vice President-Operations. It is a duty of an inspector to investigate trouble, complaints and check the efficiency of operation of facilities under the jurisdiction of Division Superintendents.
Because of complaints received that cars were being badly delayed in Carrier's yard at Buffalo, N.Y., Inspector of Operation T. Gabler and A. Meinke were sent to investigate and check the efficiency of operation and report to their supervisors. Mr. Gabler was at Buffalo from February 1 through 13 and Mr. Meinke from February 1 through 7.
During the time the inspectors were at Buffalo they checked the work performed by clerks and took an inventory of cars in the yard. No clerical positions were abolished or annulled and clerks performed all their normal duties of checking cars, tracks, making reports, handling bills, etc., during the period.
On February 3, 1966, the Local Chairman filed a protest with the Superintendent that exclusive clerical work was allegedly being performed by the inspectors checking tracks and taking an inventory of cars, which was answered on February 4, 1966. Claim instituted on February 23, 1966 was denied and thereafter handled on appeal and denied at all levels. Copies of pertinent correspondence are attached as Carrier's Exhibits A through O.
OPINION OF BOARD: Two Inspectors, not covered by the Clerks' Agreement, were dispatched to Buffalo, New York yards, during the winter of 1965-1966 to supervise performance at the electronic classification yard owned jointly by this Carrier and Norfolk and Western Railway. An implementing agreement between the two carriers and the Clerks was entered into covering the coordination of positions resulting from the operation of the joint yard. While there, the Inspectors investigated troubles and complaints,
checked the operation of the facilities, "checked the work performed by clerks and took an inventory of the cars in the yard." One Inspector was at Buffalo from February 1 through February 13, 1966 and the other from February 1 through February 7, 1966.
Employes' basic position is that taking inventory and checking cars or tracks is work belonging to employes covered by the Clerks' Agreement and that the Carrier violated that Agreement when the Inspectors were required to and did perform that work.
Carrier does not categorically deny that the Inspectors took inventory and checked cars. They simply say that this work does not belong exclusively to employes covered by the Clerks' Agreement.
It is true that the Scope neither describes nor defines clerical work. But the convincing evidence in the record shows that clerical employes have by history, custom and practice performed that work. There is no showing and the Carrier has presented no probative evidence, that Inspectors have traditionally taken inventory and made out inventory sheets.
When the claim was first presented to the Superintendent on February 3, 1966, he replied that Inspectors are officers of the Company and "they can do whatever they feel necessary to be done to improve operation and alleviate complaints." Carrier's highest appeal office later wrote, in part, as follows:
But the record shows that the Inspectors did perform "productive work", work which by history, custom and practice has been done exclusively by employes covered by the Agreement. It may have been historic for Agents, Inspectors, yardmen and others to check bills, cars, hold tracks, etc., but it has not been historic for them to take inventory and prepare inventory sheets as was done in this case.
The record shows that only one Inspector remained in the Yard from February 9 through February 13, 1966. The claims on behalf of two clerks for February 9, 10, 11 and 12, 1966 is erroneous. The claims of the senior clerk only for each of those dates is valid.
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