-Owses Award No. 18257
Docket No. TD-18657







PARTIES TO DISPUTE:



CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE, ST. PAUL AND PACIFIC

RAILROAD COMPANY


STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the American Train Dispatchers Association that:



EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: There is an Agreement between the parties, a copy of which is on file with this Board, and by this reference is incorporated into and made a part of this Submission, the same as though fully set forth herein.

For the Board's ready reference, provisions of said Agreement pertinent to this dispute are here quoted in full:











Attached hereto as Carrier's Exhibits are copies of the following letters written by,













OPINION OF BOARD: On May 5, 1969, Carrier abolished the position of Night Chief Dispatcher at its Savanna, Illinois dispatching office. This was the only such position on Carrier's property for at least 20 years prior to the abolishment. There is no evidence of the service requirements upon which the establishment of the position was based.

Petitioner alleges that, upon the abolishment, the duties of the Night Chief Dispatcher position were combined with the duties of the second and third Trick Dispatchers at Savanna. Citing Rule 1(b) and Rule 44 in support,

19257 5

Petitioner contends that the second and third Trick Dispatchers were, after the abolishment, contractually entitled to be compensated at the Night Chief Dispatcher rate of pay. The said Rules read:













Relative to Rule 1(b)(1), Petitioner did not adduce factual evidence of probative value that the second and third Trick Dispatchers performed work, after of the abolishment, involving: (a) "supervision of train dispatchers and other similar employes;" (b) "to supervise the handling of trains and the distribution of power and equipment incident thereto;" or, any other work exclusively reserved to the position of Night Chief Dispatcher.


Petitioner having failed to prove that any of the work exclusively reserved to the position of Night Chief Dispatcher was assigned, expressly or impliedly, to the second and third Trick Dispatchers after the abolishment, the abolishment did not bring about a combining of positions within the contemplation of Rule 44. See and compare, Fort Worth and Denver Railway Company v. American Train Dispatchers' Association, National Mediation Board Case No. A-4267, Arbitration 186, February 22, 1954; also, our Awards No. 6138, 6274, 11035 and 13829.




FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:


18257 6


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






    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 October, 1970.

      DISSENT TO AWARD NO. 18257, DOCKET TD-18657


As long as the majority keeps in mind the language of the award "Petitioner having failed to prove . . .", this can only mean evidence was lacking that the work was re-assigned. It further means if proof is offered in a similar case, that case must be sustained. Another reason for this dissent being registered, is that signed statements from people who were performing the work over many years were completely disregarded.


Carrier's defense that the Organization's alleged "self-serving statements" is nothing more than this Board upholding a dual standard. If Carrier states something, it is true; if the Organization states something, it is self serving. Carrier DOES NOT supply this Board with ANY PROOF, JUST statements.


    For this and other reasons this dissent is registered.


                      G. P. Kasamis

                      Labor Member


Keenan Printing Co., Chicago, Ill. Printed in U.S.A.
18257 7