PARTIES TO DISPUTE:



STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the Lehigh Valley Railroad Company that:



















EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Claimants in this dispute are Donald Robbins, John Schmidinger, James Lightcap, Andrew Beatty, James Bennett, George Fech and H. Markow, Jr., members of a signal construction gang who are recruited from an entire seniority district.


May 9, 1967, the headquarters of the gang was designated as Slatington, Pa. by bulletin. The headquarters of the gang was changed by bulletin to Allentown, Pa. on December 12, 1967, and again on July 29, 1968, to Bethlehem, Pa. The change in headquarters was made on each occasion by abolishing the gang positions and readvertising them at the new headquarters.


It is obvious that the carrier was attempting to evade the provisions of Article I, Section 1-A3 and B3 of Arbitration Award No. 298.

Carrier's Exhibit G is a letter dated May 26, 1969 from General Chairman Lightcap to Chief of Personnel Midgley calling attention to the same claim and referred to interpretations 12, 38 and 52, as now controlling.


Carrier's Exhibit 11 denied the claim again, Chief of Personnel's letter July 15, 1969 to General Chairman Behney.


The Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen of America on this property selected Section 1, A, B and C of the Arbitration Board No. 298. They further elected not to choose Section II or Section III of Award No. 298.




OPINION OF BOARD: Claimants contend that Carrier violated the Award of Arbitration Board 298. That Award deals generally with the circumstances under which employes are entitled to lodging, meals, reimbursed expenses and other benefits in connection with their employment. Claimants maintain that Carrier tried to circumvent the intent of the Award by changing the headquarters of a construction gang twice in a twelve month period.


Carrier defends by asserting that the headquarters were not changed at all, but in fact were disolved as jobs were completed and newly established at other locations as unrelated jobs were commenced. Further, Carrier maintains that the Arbitration Award is inapplicable in any event since the portions relied upon by Claimants pertain only to operations where employes are required to live in camp cars and no camp cars were maintained at any location where a construction gang was assigned.


The resolution herein requires a determination of whether the Award of Arbitration Board 298 was intended to cover the situation presented herein and, if so, whether its terms were violated by the conduct of the Carrier. Thus, the dispute centers upon a difference as to the meaning and application of the Arbitration Award and Interpretation No. 12. Such a dispute is outside the jurisdiction of the Third Division. Section 14 of the Arbitration Agreement dated July 19, 1967 directs that all differences as to the meaning and application of the Award shall be referred to the Arbitration Board for final and binding resolution.


The Third Division has consistently held that where the parties have agreed by contract to a procedure for resolving particular disputes which provides for the submission of such disputes to a particular Board or other forum for final and binding disposition, such a dispute may not properly come before the Third Division. Our position must be the same when the procedure is provided by an Arbitration Award which has the force and effect of a contract.


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 Labnr Act, as approved June 21, 1934;


18485
That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

A difference between the parties over the meaning and application of the Award of Arbitration Board No. 298 exists. The Third Division has no jurisdiction over such a dispute.










Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 31st day of March, 1971.



It is our position that the Majority has erred in declining to take jurisdiction in the dispute, the circumstances being analogous to those giving rise to Interpretation No. 12 to the Award of Arbitration Board No. 298. In response to the Dissent of the Carrier Members in Award 18381, the Labor Members correctly explained as follows:

"The Railway Labor Act recognizes two main types of disputes: (1) Major disputes relate to formation of agreements, matters of interest; and, (2) Minor disputes involve application of agreement provisions to specific fact situations, matters of right.


The Act provides, with respect to major disputes, for voluntary collective bargaining about matters of interest so that agreementsproviding specific rights-may be reached. If these unassisted efforts fail to result in agreement, the Act provides for mediation under the auspices of the National Mediation Board. If agreement is reached in this manner, the written accord is identified as a `mediation agreement' attested by the mediator involved. Provision is made by the Act, Section 5, Second, for interpretation by the Mediation Board if a `controversy arises over the meaning or the application of such agreement.'


If no agreement results from mediation, procedures are provided for voluntary arbitration, Section 7 of the Act. Such procedures, if utilized by the parties, require a binding agreement concerning the specifics to be affected. And one of the mandatory requirements of such an agreement is that it must contain a provision for interpretation by the Arbitration Board in case of a controversy arising over the meaning or the application of the provisions of the award to be made by such Board, Section 8(m) of the Act.



18485 4


Once an agreement is reached, disputes about its provisions as applied to every-day fact situations are termed minor disputes, subject to the decisional procedures and jurisdiction of the Adjustment Board if the parties themselves fail to resolve them. It is well settled that jurisdiction of the Adjustment Board is exclusive and may not be encroached upon even by the courts. (Special Boards of Adjustment, provided by the Act are merely extensions of the Adjustment Board). Slocum v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western RR (339 U. S. 239).


What, then, is the purpose of the requirement in the Railway Labor Act for interpretation by the Mediation Board of Mediation agreements, and by Arbitration Boards of Arbitration awards? It must be noted that the provisions of Section 5, Second, and Section 8(m) are essentially similar, and certainly have the same intent as to the purpose to be achieved.


The Mediation Board, in its annual reports, deals specifically with this question. We quote from the current `Thirty-Sixth Annual Report of the National Mediation Board,' pages 39 and 40:








18485 5






18485


"In harmony with this sound doctrine the Adjustment Board has many times decided "minor disputes' involving rules arrived at by means of arbitration. A few examples are Third Division Awards 4967, 13314, 14268, 14269, 14270, 14271, 14407, 16111, 16156, 17486. In some of these cases, as 4967, no question of the Adjustment Board's jurisdiction was raised. In others, as 13314, arguments similar to that of the dissenting Carrier Members here were considered and rejected."


Award 18485 errs, and I dissent.




Keenan Printing Co., Chicago, Ill. Printed in U.S.A.
18485 7