NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
AMERICAN TRAIN DISPATCHERS ASSOCIATION
ST. LOUIS-SAN FRANCISCO RAILWAY COMPANY
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the American Train Dispatchers Association that:
(a) The St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company (hereinafter
"the Carrier") violated the effective Agreement between the parties,
Article 1 thereof in particular, when on June 11, 1969 it required and/
or permitted other than those covered thereby, to perform work covered by said Agreement.
(b) Carrier shall now compensate Train Dispatcher R. C. Reddick
one day's compensation at time and one-half the daily rate applicable
to Assistant Chief Dispatcher for said violation on the rest day of
Claimant.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: There is an Agreement in effect
between the parties, copy of which is on file with this Board, and the same is
incorporated into this Ex Parte Submission as though fully set out herein.
Article 1 - Scope is identical in the Agreement effective September 1,
1949, revised as of January 1, 1953 and again revised effective October 1,
1965, insofar as the rules material to this dispute are concerned.
For the Board's ready reference, Article 1, Scope, of the Agreement is
here quoted in full text:
"ARTICLE I
(a) SCOPE
This agreement shall govern the hours of service and working
conditions of train dispatchers. The term `train dispatcher' as hereinafter used, shall include night chief, assistant chief, trick, relief and
extra train dispatchers. It is agreed that one chief dispatcher in each
dispatching office shall be excepted from the scope and provisions
of this agreement.
Note (1): Positions of excepted chief dispatcher will be filled by
employes holding seniority under this agreement.
This claim was presented on the following reported Statement of Facts:
At 9:10 A. M., June 17, 1969, Mr. C. E. Hurt, Trainmaster, Quanah,
Texas, instructed train No. 31 at Snyder, Oklahoma to bring what he
has handy to Quanah. If possible bring 10 mty covered hoppers and 2
mty box.
No. '1 did as instructed.
The various reasons given for the declination of this claim are set forth in
the Carrier's letter November 19, 1969, copy attached as Carrier's Exhibit No.
38. The trainmaster who is alleged to have committed the violations in Claims
37 and 38 is one of the division officers who, as such, has responsible control over
the operation of a division, or a terminal, or of a major activity within an
operating division, and when acting in the discharge of his duties and responsibilities, it is not mandatory that a division trainmaster exercise such responsible
control only through employes of the train dispatchers' class, nor do the Rules
of the Train Dispatchers' Agreement place such a hindrance or limitation upon
him,
(Exhibits not reproduced.)
OPINION OF BOARD:
On the claim date Trainmaster at Quanah, Texas
issued the following message to the Operators at Quanah, Texas:
"Run No. 32 at 8:00 A. M. Hold No. 36 until 7:00 A. M. at Floydada to get the racks."
This is clearly a train order involving the movement of trains and is a
message the direction of which beiongs exclusively to Train Dispatchers under
the Scope Rule.
Carrier contends that the Claimant has shown no loss of pay or that he is
entitled to any compensatory damages. This is not an isolated claim wherein the
Carrier inadvertently or because of unusual circumstances violated the Agreement. It is rather one of very many claims arising out of the consolidation of
Carrier's dispatching offices. Many contract violations have arisen because of
Carrier's persistent misinterpretation of the contract rules. To permit such
violations to exist without imposing a penalty would be an open invitation to the
Carrier to continue to violate the rules with impunity. That would be contrary
to effectual enforcement of voluntary obligations.
No serious questions has been raised that R. C. Reddick is a proper Claimant. Since he did not actually perform any of the work found to belong to
Dispatchers, he is entitled to recover one day's compensation at the straight
time rate and not at overtime the daily rate.
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 Labjr Act, as approved June 21, 1934;
18691 16
That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute
involved herein; and
That the Carrier violated the Agreement.
AWARD
Claim is sustained for one day's pay at straight time the daily rate.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of THIRD DIVISION
ATTEST: E. A. Killeen
Executive
Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 10th day of September 1971.
Keenan Printing Go., Chicago, 111. Printed in U.S.A.
18691 17