NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Francis X. Quinn, Referee
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY, AIRLINE AND STEAMSHIP
CLERKS, FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS AND
STATION EMPLOYES
BOSTON AND MAINE CORPORATION
STATEMENT
OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the
Brotherhood (GL-6709) that:
(1) The Carrier violated the Clerks' Agreement, effective September 1, 1952, Rules 1 and 3(b), among others; also, Articles III
and IX of the supplementary agreement, effective March 23, 1959,
when on October 21, 22, 23 and 24, 1968, a Travelling Auditor, an
official of the Carrier, excepted from all the rules of the Agreement,
performed clerical work at Lowell, Massachusetts Station, belonging
to employes covered by the scope and seniority provisions of the
Agreement.
(2) Carrier shall now be required to compensate W. J. Cunningham, seniority 8-7-41, for eight (8) hours at punitive rate ($51.08),
on his rest day, Monday, October 21, 1968; for sixteen (16) hours'
pay in behalf of J. D. Simoneau, seniority 2-11-41, at punitive rate
($102.16), on his rest days, Tuesday and Wednesday, October 22 and
23, 1968, and in behalf of W. H. Stacy, seniority 5-3-42, for four (4)
hours at punitive rate ($25.54), on his rest day, Thursday, October 24,
1968.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: At Lowell, Massachusetts, the
Carrier has ono freight office clerk located in the passenger station Monday
to Friday, and a full complement of yard clerks, seven days weekly, around
the clock, who are headquartered in a yard office roughly '/a to
a/4
mile south
of the station.
All of these employes are on the New Hampshire District roster of Carrier's Boston Division.
Prior to April 10, 1958, Carrier had five (5) clerks in its freight office
force.
On that date it abolished a general freight clerk's position, and when
the then General Agent at the time took over these clerical duties, which
Evidence on
the handling
of back correspondence is readily
available along with the work done by Mr. Ayotte on the reclaim
report and other matters.
As expressed in my letter of February 20th, compliance should be
made with Article III of CL 46 which the Local Chairman is anxious to undertake if the Superintendent will be likewise instructed.
Mrs. Ayotte after considerable experience at other points has
been on this job since CL 60 and was considered very capable by
the Superintendent and Mr. Glendenning at and since that time. In
fact, Mr. Glendenning instituted the
overtime recognizing
its necessity and I understand overtime is still required.
Unquestionably, this is a case
where the
work is far greater
than can be handled by remaining forces in addition to current
traffic increases since 1967.
Would
appreciate an
early conference.
Yours truly,
Isl J. Connor
General Chairman"
To date, no reply has been made.
(Exhibits not reproduced.)
CARRIER'S STATEMENT OF
FACTS: At the Lowell,
Massachusetts
Agency
the freight
office clerk was not performing his duties properly.
Having
attempted to
instruct him by telephone without success, it became
necessary to dispatch a supervisory
employe, Traveling
Auditor W. G. Ayotte,
to Lowell for
three or
four days to instruct the clerk in the proper methods
of performing his work.
Although productive work was not performed by the supervisor as alleged,
the fact remains that the three claimant yard clerks are not qualified freight
office clerks.
Claim was declined on
the property
on the basis that the freight office
clerk was being instructed by the supervisor, who did not actually perform
as claimed, nor did he take
the place
of any other freight house clerk.
OPINION OF BOARD:
The gravamen of the present claim is that the
Carrier violated Rules 1 (Scope) and 3(b) (Seniority) and Articles III and IX
of the Supplementary Agreement effective March 23, 1959, when a Travelling
Auditor visited
the Lowell,
Massachusetts Station for the purpose of instruction in
method and
development of priority timetables and performed clerical work. The Auditor did demonstrate outward waybilling, interchange
method, per
diem reclaim, handling of a neighboring railroad account and
Freight Claim
work.
This
Board would not support
such
instructional visits if
their true purpose were to
perform clerical work or infringe on designated
overtime. After
careful study of
the record,
we find that the Petitioner has failed to meet
18015 7
the burden of proving that the Travelling Auditor did perform any designated clerical work other than merely instructing and developing a systematic approach for the performance of clerical duties. We
have no other alternative but to deny this claim.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the
whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:
That the parties waived oral hearing;
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
That the Agreement was not violated.
AWARD
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of THIRD DIVISION
ATTEST: S. H. Schulty
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of June 1970.
Keenan Printing Co., Chicago, 111. Printed in U.S.A.
18015 8