BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY, AIRLINE AND STEAMSHIP
CLERKS, FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS AND
STATION EMPLOYES
CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE, ST. PAUL AND PACIFIC RAILROAD
COMPANY
Friday with rest days of Saturday and Sunday, located at Terre Haute, Indiana.
Attached hereto as Carrier's Exhibit "D" is a copy of Bulletin No. 10 dated January 22, 1969 assigning Claimant E. E. Good to Revising Clerk Position 16220.
As of April 22, 1967 Employe F. M. Priester III was the regularly assigned occupant of Relief Yard Clerk Position which was assigned as follows:
Employe Priester III was assigned to the Relief Yard Clerk Position by bulletin dated February 4, 1969 which is attached hereto as Carrier's Exhibit "E".
As a result of the abolishment of Yard Clerk Position 17510 at Van Yard effective May 26, 1969 (Carrier's Exhibit "C") the Relief Yard Clerk Position, occupied by Employee F. M. Priester III was rebulletined on May 19, 1969 account change in assignment wherein relief previously performed on Yard Clerk Position 17510 on Monday and Tuesday was changed to provide relief on Yard Clerk Position 17540 located at Hulman Street on the days in question. Thus effective May 26, 1969 all positions relieved by the assignment in question were located at Hulman Street Yard.
Attached hereto as Carrier's Exhibit "F" is copy of letter written by Mr. L. W. Harrington, Vice President-Labor Relations to Mr. H. C. Hopper, General Chairman under date of October 3, 1969.
OPINION OF BOARD: At the time the claim herein arose, Carrier's mieration at Terre Haute, Indiana, consisted of around-the-clock yard service at Hulman Street Yard and one yard clerk position at Van Yard. The Carrier states that the distance between Holman Street Yard and Van Yard is about five miles by rail.
The yard cleric position at Van Yard, which was the position in controversy, had an ending time between 12 midnight and 5:00 A. M. for some thirteen years prior to the instant claim being filed on April 22, 1969. In the handling of the dispute on the property the Carrier took the position that the hours assigned to the position involved were for the purpose of meeting the requirements of the service and were in accordance with Rule 14 (d) of the Agreement, reading:
The Petitioner contends that the position at Van Yard must be considered together with the positions at Holman Yard as constituting aroundthe-clock service at Terre Haute and that the hours of assignment are in violation of Rule 14 (c) reading:
We agree with the Carrier that two separate yards and/or locations within the City of Terre Haute are involved and that around-the-clock service was not maintained at Van Yard and, therefore, Rule 14(d) is applicable rather than 14(c). As stated in Award 14125 involving the same parties -
There is no proof by the Petitioner to show that such necessity did not exist at Van Yard. In fact, the time that such assignment was in effect would indicate the contrary.
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