(al The Southern Pacific Company-Texas and Louisiana Lines -(hereinafter "the Carrier") violated the effective agreement between the parties, Rule 2(b) thereof in particular, when effective July 1, 1969 it required and/or permitted employes not covered by said agreement, to perform work within the scope of the effective Agreement.
(b) Carrier shall now cumpensate the train dispatcher indicated one day's compensation at the t.ime and one-half rate applicable to Chief Dispatcher on dates accompanying names as all here observing rest days and available.
(c) Because of said violation, the Carrier shall, effective September 1, 1969 and each date thereafter until said violation ceases, compensate the senior available extra train dispatcher one days compensation at the pro jata rate applicable to Chief Dispatcher.
(d) In the event no extra train dispatcher was available Carrier shall compensate the senior available train dispatcher observing rest days, one day's compensation at the time and one-half rate applicable to chief dispatcher for said violation.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: There is an Agreement in effect between the parties, last revised May 1, 1967, a copy of which is on file with this Board and the same is incorporated intn this Es Parte Submission as though fully set out herein.
Rule 2 defines the work and the positions of those covered by the Agreement and for the Board's ready reference, said role, Scope, of the Agreement is here quoted in fall text:
Performance records of trains are considered to be necessary as they reflect the ~ffici;ney of operation. Each Division Superintendent required the Chief Dispatched to be knowledgeable of the performance of trains on his assigned district or territory during the time he was on duty. The Night Chief Dispatcher was required to make a record of the performance of trains for the preceding calendar day. He was also required to reduce this record to a report in the proper form and have it completed by 6:00 A. M. the following eav.
Said "C:OU A. AI. SITUATION REPORT" was addressed to General Officers as well as Division Officers and contained such information as trail; identification, horsepower of locomotive units (previously steam engine numhers), loads, empties and tonnage of trains. It also included the amount of time in excess of time schedules for movement of a tram over a Division and cause of excess time (delays).
With tile consolidation of all train dispacching offices on the TB;L Lines during 1959 into one office at Houston, Texas, territories and districts of Chief Dispatchers were consolidated. The consolidation of districts and territories necessarily brought about a consolidation of records and reports. The 6:00 A. M. Situation Reports were consolidated into four (4) and are commonly lrnown as:
duties which should be assigned the incumbents and the responsibilities of the Chief Dispatchers thereafter.
On September 5, 1069, tire Office Chairman of the American Train Dispatchers Association presented, by letter to the Superintendent of Transportation, a claim on behalf of certain train dispatchers for each date between July 5, 1969 and August 31, 1969, for payment of a day's pay at time and one-half at Chief Dispatcher's rate, based on the contention that the named employes who performed no service, but who were on rest days on the dates for which named, should have been used as an additional Chief Dispatcher to have performed the work of iaaking the report of operations (commonly called 6:00 A. M. situation report) for the three segments of the territory where clerks now had been assigned to assist the Chief Dispatchers.
The claim was declined. It was appealed October 25, 1989, by the General Chairman, ATDA, to Carrier's Manager of Labor Relations, highest officer on the property designated for such handling. On November 12, 1069, the Manager of Labor Relations declined the claim. Claim was discussed In conference Dccernl;er 8, 1969, without settlement. When the General Chairman indicated that the claim would be handled further on appeal, his attention was directed to the foot that h;s contention raised a jurisdictional dispute kind that the Brotherhood of Railroad, Airlipe and Steamship Clerks. Freight I-Iaoxilers, Station and i:xpn-osa EinpJoyes, was a third party in interest in the case. CARRIER'S EXHIBIT NO. 7 reproduces the correspondence referred to :;bore.
OPINION 0'r' BOARD: !Effective July 1, 1969 Carrier stabltshed the position of "additional third trick Clerk-Typist". The purpose of that position, referred to in tho record as Posi·.ion No, 58, is set forth in the memorandum of .June 27, 1969, from the Superintendent of Transportation instructing the Chief Dispatchers as 'to the dutirs of the position. The relevant parts of the memorandum follow:
"Effective July 1, ad·.dtional assignment in the Accno office will be made which will provide two Clerics-Typists on first trick 7 days per week, one on second trick 7 days per we^k and ttvo on third trick 7 days per week with appropriate relic,".
Third trick Chief will check the reports for accuracy and ,.rill ;oo:ice the delays that are chown on the morning reports and will be held responsible for the proper preparation and accuracy of the reports, I do riot expect the t-bird trick Chief to do his own typing of the reports.
The duties of Position No. 58 are referred to, by Petitioner, variously throughout the record. At some places they are referred to as "to assist in preparing morning reports, etc.", or "to prepare division reports" or "being permitted and/or required to perform the duties of compiling ^` * " reports." No matter how the duties are described, Petitioner contends that the performance of the duties by the incumbent of Position No. 58, specifically with respect to the 6:00 A. Al. Situation Report, constituted the transfer of work from the Chief Dispatcher in violation of the agreement. Petitioner relies on Rule 2(b) of the agreement generally and in particular upon the phrase "and to perform related work."
'We shall find that the duties of Position No. 58 are those set out in the memorandum of June 27, 74969, as there is no evidence to the contrary.
Thus, it is clear from the record that the work performed by the Clerk, on the 6:00 A. M. Situation Report is done under the supervision of the Chief Dispatcher to whom the report must be submitted for checking before being released. The record is devoid o: any evidence tending to show that the work Clone by Position. No. 58 detracts, in any way, from the Chief Dispatcher's primary function, the responsibility for the movement of trains or his other supervisory fractions. In this connection it is also clear that the primary function of the Chief Dispatcher is clearly spelled out in Rule 2(b). However. as clear as the primary responsibility is the phrase "and to perform related work.", is not so clear.
That phrase, of course, does not specifically reserve the work in issue to Chief Dispatchers under rule 2(b). Carrier contends the phrase is "vague and indefinite". Petitioner says it is not. To the extent that the phrase is capable of being understood in ta·o or more ways it is ambiguous or equivocal. The phrase may be understood as allowing latitude in assignments rather than i . a restrictive sense. in any case, it is not a phrase or. which we can base a finding that the work has been exclusively reserved for Chief Dispatches:-. Award 14385, 13829. Therefore, the claim is denied.
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 Carricr and Lmployes vithin the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, .:; apprm:cd Juno 21, 1934;
That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involvel herein; and