NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number CL-19610
Frederick R. Blackwell, Referee
(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,
(Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(The Western Pacific Railroad Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood (GL 7028)
that:
1. The Carrier violated the Rules of the Clerks' Agreement by permitting and/or requiring Chief
position in Seniority District 12, to perform routine clerical work assigned
to employes on bid positions in Seniority District 18.
2. Mr. Paul Silva is entitled and shall now be compensated payment
of a minimum call for September 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18,
21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and continuing until the violation has been corrected.
OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant, Paul Silva, was the regularly assigned Car-Train
Desk Clerk when this dispute arose. The basis of claim is
that Agreement between the parties, effective December 16, 1943, revised
September 16, 1965, was violated on September 2, 1970, when the duties of
Car-Train Desk Clerk, which is a bulletined position, were transferred to
Chief Clerk, Marketing, which is a Rule 2 excepted position. It is specifically
alleged that Carrier violated the following Letter of Understanding which
was entered into by the parties under date of August 18, 1965.
Mr. Frank James Mr. R. J. McCarthy
General Chairman BRC West Coast Representative BRC
1788 Albert Avenue 953 Pacific Building
San Jose, California San Francisco, California
This will confirm our statements to you that other than by
reclassification of a bulletin position under the procedure
established in Letter Agreement Rule 2 (4), the contents of
Letter Agreement No. 4 do not contemplate the transfer of work
from a bulletined position to a Rule 2 position.
~M~k
Award Number 19548 Page 2
Docket Number CL-19610
Rule 2 positions are filled by Carrier without regard to seniority,
and an occupant of such a position is not subject to displacement except by
Carrier approval.
The Car-Train Desk Clerk duties claimed to have been transferred
are the following:
Receiving calls from shippers for empty cars; making all car ordersForms 10220 and 10220A-for demurr
As proof that such a transfer of duties occurred, Petitioner offered
in evidence the following September 2, 1970 letter of Mr. J. H. Conley.
"We are in receipt of a wire from Mr. Plummer's office, concerning the handling of interior equipped
lst. On this date the Marketing Service Representatives,
located at the Customer Service Center at 19th and Jay will
accept all orders for Car Kind Codes D-E-J-K-Y and some RO
from the shippers in this area. This means the following
changes in CIS procedure:
1. Car Desk Clerks at this station will not be involved in
preparation or transmission of form 10220 or 10220A.a
2. After transmittals of form 10220A have been made, new
car assignment message type 304 will be transmitted to car
location Agent.
3. After car assignments are made to order Marketing Service
Representatives will mail completed forms 10220 and 10220A
to Agents for demurrage records.
4. These changes apply to interior equipped box cars only =
CKC shown above. No changes in ordering and assignments of
other types of cars at this time.
5. However, car assignment message (304) can also be used
to move the above listed car kinds from one region to another
in same manner as our present distribution orders."
Carrier's position is that no work was transferred to the Chief
Clerk, Marketing, and that, after the change in procedures, he continued to
do the same work he did before the change. Also that the work formerly done
by the Car Desk Clerk was eliminated through the use of teletype.
Award Number 19548 Page 3
Docket Number CL-19610
Petitioner offered no direct evidence regarding Carrier's denial of
a transfer of work, but in its rebuttal brief made the following statement:
"The further contention that the work was rearranged in order
to eliminate duplication is likewise an attempt to justify
their violation of the Agreement Letter. If this logic was
valid, the Carrier would be free to transfer any clerical work
performed by fully covered positions to excepted positions by
merely having the work duplicated on both positions followed
by reliance if (sic) elimination of duplication."
We have carefully analyzed Petitioner's evidence, which consists
exclusively of the September 2, 1970 letter of Mr. Conley. Nowhere in thin
letter is there any direct or indirect evidence that the subject Car-Train
Desk Clerk duties were transferred to Chief Clerk, Marketing. With respect
to the Car Desk Clerks, the letter merely says that they"will not be involved
in preparation or transmission of form 10220 or 10220A". However, Carrier
explains the reason for this as the elimination of this work through the use
of teletype. We also note that Petitioner's above quoted statement, though
ostensibly arguing that Carrier's action was not justified, also amounted to
an indirect admission that no transfer of work did in fact occur. We find
therefore, on the record as a whole, that Petitioner did not establish that
a transfer of work did in fact occur, and, for that reason, we will dismiss the
claim.
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 Employee involved in this dispute are
respectively Carrier and Employee 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 claim be dismissed.
A W A R D
Claim dismissed.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
ATTEST:
E~,~,
x,~
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 10th day of January 1973.
~,x;r~;:~:p: