STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood (GL-5756) that:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: This dispute is between the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes as the representative of the class or craft of employes in which the Claimant in this case held a position and the Pennsylvania Railroad Company - hereinafter referred to as the Brotherhood and the Carrier, respectively.
There is in effect a Rules Agreement, effective May 1, 1942, except as amended, covering Clerical, Other Office Station and Storehouse Employes between the Carrier and this Brotherhood which the Carrier has filed with the National Mediation Board in accordance with Section 5, Third (e), of the Railway Labor Act, and also with the National Railroad Adjustment Board. This Rules Agreement will be considered a part of this Statement of Facts. Various Rules thereof may be referred to herein from time to time without quoting in full.
The Claimant in this case, Mr. Joseph LaPorte, holds a Group 2 position of Chauffeur in the Truck Pool Service at Exchange Place, Jersey City, New Jersey, New York Division, Eastern Region. He has a seniority date on the seniority roster of the New York Division in Group 2.
subsequently requested the preparation of a Joint Submission for the further handling of this matter by the General Chairman with the Manager, Labor Relations, the highest officer of the Carrier designated to handle disputes on the property. A copy of the Joint Submission is attached as Exhibit "B."
This matter was discussed by the General Chairman with the Manager, Labor Relations at a meeting held on April 15, 1964, following which the latter officer denied the claim by letter dated April 27, 1964. A copy of the Manager, Labor Relations' letter of April 27, 1964, is attached as Exhibit "C."
The claim was relisted for discussion at a special meeting held on January 19, and 20, 1965, following which the Manager, Labor Relations, in a letter dated February 11, 1965, reaffirmed his previous denial.
Therefore, so far as the Carrier is able to anticipate the basis of the Employes' claim, the questions, to be determined by your Board are (1) whether the operations of a truck assigned to the Supervisor, Track No. 2 at Jersey City by a Maintenance of Way Chauffeur for the performance of work exclusively for the Maintenance of Way Department violated the Scope Rule of the Clerical Rules Agreement and (2) whether the claimant is entitled to the compensation which he claims.
OPINION Oh' BOARD: The claim herein alleges that the Agreement was violated when the Carrier abolished a Group 2 Chauffeur position and assigned the work of operating a truck for Supervisor of Track No. 2 to employes of the Maintenance of Way Department.
The record is clear that notice requirements as mandated by the United States Supreme Court have been met by the Board.
The Petitioner relies primarily on the Scope Rule of the Agreement. In prior Awards of this Division involving the same Scope rule as is involved herein, which is general in character and does not purport to describe or define work, we have held that it is necessary to look to past practice, tradition and custom to determine whether the work complained of is reserved exclusively to employes covered by the Agreement, and that the burden of proving that such work is reserved exclusively to employes covered by the Agreement by tradition, custom and practice is upon the Petitioner. Awards 16544, 11963.
The record in the present docket, including the submission filed by the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes, shows conclusively that by tradition, custom and practice, the operation of trucks in the Maintenance of Way Department is not reserved exclusively to employee covered by the Clerks' Agreement. This being the situation, the abolishment of the position involved and the assignment of the operation of the truck to employes of the Maintenance of Way Department, was not in violation of the Clerks' Agreement. The claim will, therefore, be denied.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving the parties to this dispute due retire of hearing thereon, and upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:
That the Carrier and the Employee involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;