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 19, 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 V. L. Walker
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 Parts Submission as though fully set out herein.
Article I - Scope is identical in the Agreement effective September 1,
1949, revised as of January 1, 7953 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 dispaLcher. 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.
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:
The claim is based on the following:
"At 11:45 A. M., June 19, 1969, Operator, Enid, Oklahoma, gave
No. 631
message at
Blackwell to swap trailing unit with one unit off
No. 632 at
meeting point
."
Although Carrier alleges that it has no record of such instructions, the record
is char that they had been issued and that the crew did as instructed.
The message is a "distribution of power and equipment" incident to the
supervision of the handling of trains. This work belongs exclusively to the
Chief, Night Chief and Assistant Chief Dispatcher under Article I - Scope
Rule. In permitting the Operator to send that
message, Carrier
violated the
Rule.
Since the Claimant did not actually perform any of the work complained
of, he is entitled to recover one day's compensation at the straight time rate
and not at the
overtime daily
rate.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of he Adjustment Board, upon the whole
record and all the
evidence, finds
and holds:
That the parties waived oral bearing:
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 Carrier violated the Agreement.
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 24th day of March 1972.
Keenan Printing Co., Chicago, Ill. Printed in U.S.A.
19083 76