NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number CL-19978
Joseph A. Sickles, Referee
(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,
( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Missouri Pacific Railroad Company
STATEMENT OF
CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood (GL-7225)
that:
1. Carrier violated Rules 1, 2, 3, 5, 25 and 45 of the Clerks' Rules
Agreement, at Monroe, Louisiana, when, beginning September 13, 1971, it required
and/or permitted its Relay Manager, D. H. Crockett, to leave the Relay Office
to perform clerical work in another office, six days per week, Monday through
Saturday.
2. Carrier shall now be required to compensate Mr. J. L. Ragland at
the punitive rate of pay for the dates and time outlined below:
Date Claimed Time Claimed at Punitive Rate
September 13, 1971 2 hours and 30 minutes
September 14, 1971 3 hours and 30 minutes
September 15, 1971 3 hours
September 16, 1971 3 hours and 15 minutes
September 17, 1971 2 hours and 45 minutes
September 18, 1971 3 hours
September 20, 1971 3 hours
September 21, 1971 2 hours
September 22, 1971 2 hours
September 23, 1971 3 hours
September 24, 1971 2 hours
September 25, 1971 3 hours
September 27, 1971 2 hours
September 28, 1971 2 hours
September 29, 1971 2 hours
September 30, 1971 2 hours
A total of 41 hours at the rate of $6.33 per hour, or $259.53.
OPINION OF BOARD: Upon a review of the entire record, the Board is of the view
that the Organization has demonstrated, by probative evidence,
Claimant's right to perform the work in question, subject only to a determination
of whether the employees under the telegraphers' Agreement could appropriately
perform this clerical work under the doctrine established in Award 615 and sub
sequent determinations,
1
Award Number 19978 Page 2
Docket Number CL-19978
In the case at issue, the Relay Manager was required to leave his
office on the second floor of a building to report to another office on the
first floor of the same building to perform the clerical work.
Carrier has cited certain Awards upholding the right to require
employees to travel certain distances to perform work. However, in those
Awards performance of clerical work under an "ebb and flow" concept was not
at issue.
Award 615 (Swacker) was redefined by the same Referee in Award 636
and it was held appropriate to assign clerical work, existing or arising at,
or immediately adjacent to, the post of the telegrapher. Award 9440 (Bernstein) considered various g
issue.
We view, with favor, the determination of Referee Carter in Award
4288:
"We think the rule stated in Award 615, as limited by
Award 636 and other subsequent Awards, means that telegraphers with telegraphic duties to perform ha
to perform clerical duties to the extent necessary to fill
out their time, but that said clerical duties must be incidental to or in proximity with their work
See Award 3988. It was never intended that a telegrapher
might be severed from his post and sent to an unrelated
location to fill out his time, or, that clerical work might
be taken from a clerical position at an unrelated point and
brought to a telegrapher to be performed by him. Such an
interpretation would permit an improper invasion of the
rights of clerks under their agreement and render the positions of clerks very insecure."
See also Award 5785 (Wenke).
The work in question was not existing or arising at, or immediately
adjacent to, the post of the telegrapher, nor was it in close proximity. Accordingly, the Board
The claim seeks compensation at a punitive rate for certain specified
dates and times. The record demonstrates that Claimant was under pay at the
time of the violation. This Referee has recently held, in Award 19899, that
full employment is not a deterrent to an award of damages, however, under the
facts of this record, the Board is not disposed to grant compensation at the
punitive rate (See Award 7816 (Smith)), but rather we will award compensation
at the rate which the Claimant would have received had he performed the work iquestion. See Award 97
Award Number 19978 page 3
Docket fi=ber CL-19978
FIIIDI1sS: The Third Division of the Adjustmcat Board, upcn the whole record
and all the evidence, finds and holds:
That the parties waived oral hearing;
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 Adjust~r3nt Board has jurisdiction over the
dispute involved herein; and
That the Agreement was violated.
A W A A D
Claim No. 1 is sustained.
Claim No. 2 is sustained to the extent stated in the Opinion.
KATIOILAL RAIUCAD ADJUSTIw17T BOARD
By Order of Tb ird Division
ATTEST:--Ja-~V'
644logm
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day of September 1973.