CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE, ST. PAUL &
PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY
1. Carrier violated the rules of the Clerks' Agreement at Elgin, Illinois, when effective with the abolishment of Warehouse Foreman Position No. 1956, it rearranged the clerical work at that point and unilaterally transferred assigned and continues to assign clerical work to the Agent, an employe outside the scope and application of the Clerks' Agreement.
2. Carrier shall be required to return the clerical work assigned to and being performed by the Agent to positions and employes within the scope and application of the Clerks' Agreement.
3. All employes involved in or affected as result of Carrier's action; namely, Messrs. L. R. Schmidt, W. K. VanArsdall and Wm. Pulman, Jr. shall be compensated for all wage losses suffered and accorded all other benefits prescribed in the February 7, 1965 Agreement until the violation is corrected, including restoration of protective status lost as result thereof.
The first Agreement with the Clerks' Organization on this property became effective January 1, 1920 or, in other words, almost 17 years after the first TC'EU Agreement, and has subsequently been devised on February 1, 19'22, November 1, 19'29, January 16, 1946 and September 1, 1949.
Warehouse Foreman Position No. 1906 was established at Elgin, Illinois for the express purpose of assisting the Agent and/or other employes within the scope and application of the TCEU Agreement in the performance of that part of the station work which, because of the volume involved, the Agent and/or Operators were and/or az·2 unable to perform.
When, accouat a dimlincil;iwi of work, that s'6a.tion work in ~.xcesa o:f the capacity of the Agent a.ni!o:r Operators, which was jointly participated in by the occupants of the Agent, Operators and Warehouse Foreman Position No. 1956, diminished and/or ceased to exist, the need of the Agent arid/ox Operators far the assistance of Warehouse Foreman Position No. 1956 also ceased to exist arid Wiarahouse Foreman Position No. 1956 was, therefore, abolished effective March 31, 1965.
,Copy of letter written by Mr. S. W. Amour, Vice President-Labor Relations, to Mr. H. C. Hopper, General Chairman, under date of
OPINION OF BOARD: Petitioner- contends that effective March 31, 1965, Carrier effected certain ozy°anizat:onal and op·arr.tional changes at its Elgin, Illinois facility when it abolished a clerical position of Warehouse Foreman and distributed the duties attaching thereto to remaining clerical positions at that location (i.e., Chief Clerk, Cashier and Baggageman) and to the Agent, an employe beyond the Scope of the Clerks' Agreement.
A "Statement of Claim" was filed directly with the highest Carrier officer, the Vice President-Labor IL-~laLions, alleging a violation of the February r, 1965 National Employment Stabilization Agreement. In accordance with the procecluxcs then existing, it was proper that claims and grievances involving
interpretation of the February 7, 1965 Agreement be submitted to Carrier's highest officer without local handling being ~required.
Said claim was submitted to Carrier's highest officer on April 28, 1965, but the Record reveals that Carrier "slept" on the claim until a tracer letter was transmitted dated June 24, 1965 and, on that same date, a letter was addressed to the General Chairman by Carrier's Vice President-Labor Relations, declining the claim on the basis that it had not been timely filed with the officer authorized to receive claims and grievances in the first instance.
After receiving this declination, 'the initial claim, substantially as now presented to the Board, ones on April 15, 1986 submitted to the Carrier's Superintendent, Savanna, Illinois, contending a violation of Scope Rule 1(e), Rule 57 - Date Effective and Changes, and Section 1, Article III of the February 7, 1965 National Employment Stabilization Agreement.
We sympathize with the chaos which undoubtly reigned whom the dispute arose, less than two months after consummation of the February 7, 1965 Agreement; however, having initiated the claim as a violation of the February 7, 1965 Agreement, it was incumbent on Petitioner to either follow through by presenting the claim to the Disputes Committee established under Article VII of That Agreement, ox timely filing his alleged Scope Rule violation claim under Article V of the August 21, 1964 Agreement within 60 days of date of occurrence.
The Re cord does not contain any evidence that the claim denied by Carrier's Vice President-Labor Relations on June 24, 1965 was ever appealed to the Article VII February 7, 1965 Disputes Committee. What happened to this claim, however, is immaterial as a result of subsequent actions by Petitioner. Over a year after the alleged violation occurred, the matter was presented to the Superintendent at Savanna, Illinois. The Petitioner was clearly out of time. We, therefore, have no alternative but to dismiss 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 Employer within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved .lone 21, 1934;
That this Division of the Adjustment Board haw jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and