BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY, AIRLINE AND STEAMSHIP
CLERKS, FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS AND
STATION EMPLOYES
CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE, ST. PAUL AND PACIFIC
RAILROAD COMPANY
1) Carrier violated, and continues to violate, the Clerks' Agreement at Fullerton Avenue Office Building, Chicago, Illinois when in reducing forces in the office it failed to abolish the lowest rated Comptometer Operator position and in lieu thereof abolished Comptometer Operator Position 02700 effective June 28, 1968.
ing Comptometer Operator Position No, 02700 as of 4:45 P. M., June 28, 1968.
Position 02700 was the lowest rated position in the class in the office of Assistant Comptroller and, therefore, was properly abolished in accordance with the provisions of Rule 12(c) and a past practice of long standing.
On July 16, 1968, General Chairman Hopper presented formal claim to Mr. Jacobson, Assistant Comptroller, which is the same claim presently before your Board.
Employe M. Mastro, who is the claimant in the instant case, occupied Comptometer Operator Position 03010, located in the office of Auditor of Freight Accounts and Overcharge Claims, at the time the claim was filed in his behalf. He was not either directly or indirectly affected by the abolishment of Position 02700.
OPINION OF BOARD: This case presents two issues. The Carrier contends that the claim is barred from consideration by the Board because of the Organization's failure to process the claim as required by Rule 36, "Claims and Grievances." In light of this contention the Board will first determine whether there is, in fact, a procedural deficiency here before giving study to the claim on its merits.
By letter dated April 29, 1966 the Carrier notified the Organization of the identity of its representatives, by position title, authorized to receive a claim in first instance, to receive first appeal, and to receive last appeal.
The Claimant in the instant case was an employe within the supervisory jurisdiction of the Auditor of Freight Accounts and Overcharge Claims, a position designated by the Carrier to receive the claim in the first instance. The Organization elected to present the claim initially to the Assistant Comptroller, designated to receive the first appeal. The first appeal was then taken to the Comptroller which position is not designated by the Carrier to participate in the claims and grievances procedure in any circumstance.
The argument advanced by the Organization for proceeding in this manner was that the job abolished by notice from the Carrier was "in that branch of the Office of Assistant Comptroller, not only under the general supervision but also the direct supervision of the Assistant Comptroller."
Clearly the Agreement permits the Carrier to designate its representatives at each step in the grievance procedure, an obligation it had fulfilled. Rule 36 1(a) requires that the claim must be presented on behalf of the employe involved to the officer authorized to receive same. The Carrier contends that, since the Claimant on whose behalf the claim was filed was under the supervision of the Auditor of Freight Accounts and Overcharge Claims, his claim should have been filed in the first instance with that individual.
This Board has consistently held in numerous awards that a claim must be filed with the representative duly designated by the Carrier to receive claims. The procedure for processing claims was collectively bargained by the parties, must be complied with, and cannot be waived or set aside except by mutual agreement of the parties.
The record shows that the claim here was not presented to the proper official of the Carrier at any time during the handling on the property. Therefore, the Board cannot consider the substantive issue in the claim.
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
That the claim was not filed in accordance with Rule 36 of the Agreement, and is barred.