PARTIES TO DISPUTE: ( -



1. (a) Carrier violated the Agreement when effective Monday, June 9, 1975, it declared abolished the position of Rate and Misc. Clerk with assigned work week of Monday,through Friday, rest days Saturday and Sunday, hours 7:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M., and a daily rate of $43.30; and, concurrent with the abolishment, established a so-called new position of Trainbooker with assigned work week, rest days, hours and duties the same as those of the abolished Rate and Misc. Clerk position, but with a daily rate of $41.04.

 (b) Carrier shall, because of the violation cited in (a) above, compensate Clerk John G. Waterberry, or his successor(s) to this position, for the amount of $2.26 per day, beginning Monday, June 9, 1975, and continuing until the violation ceases.

 2. (a) Carrier violated the Agreement when effective Monday, June 9, 1975, it declared abolished the position of Rate and Utility Clerk with assigned work week of Wednesday through Sunday, rest days Monday and Tuesday, hours 3:00 P.M. to 11:00 P.M., and a daily rate of $44.00; and, concurrent with the abolishment, established a so-called new position of Trainbooker with assigned work week, rest days, hours and duties the same as those of the abolished Rate and Utility Clerk position, but with a daily rate of $41.04.

 (b) Carrier shall, because of the violation cited in (a) above, compensate Clerk Harry M. Brown, or his successor(s) to this position, for the amount of $2.96 per day, beginning Monday, June 9, 1975, and continuing until the violation ceases.


3. (a) Carrier violated the Agreement when effective Monday, June 9, 1975, it declared abolished the position of Rate and Utility Clerk with assigned work week of Friday through Tuesday, rest days Wednesday and Thursday, hours 11:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M., and a daily rate of $43.30; and, concurrent with the abolishment, established a so-called new position of Trainbooker with assigned work week, rest days, hours and duties the same as those of the abolished, but with a daily rate of $41.04.

 (b) Carrier shall, because of the violation cited in (a) above, compensate Clerk Neil Procter, or his successor(s) to this position, for the amount of $2.26 per day, beginning Friday, June 13, 1975, and continuing until the violation ceases.

 4. (a) Carrier violated the Agreement when effective Monday, June 9, 1975, it declared abolished the position of Relief Rate-Utility, Rate & Asst. Chief Rate Clerk which performed rest day relief, on the Rate and Clerk position occupied by Clerk John G. Waterberry on Sunday, the Rate and Utility Clerk position occupied by Clerk Harry M. Brown on Monday and Tuesday, and on the position of Asst. Chief Rate Clerk on Wednesday and Thursday; and, concurrent with the abolishment, established a so-called new position of Relief Trainbooker and Assistant Chief Clerk, relieving the same employes, on the same positions, on the same respective days of each week, performing the same duties as before the abolishments, but with the positions having changed titles and reduced rates that produced $8.18 less compensation per week.

 (b) Carrier shall, because of the violation cited in (a) above, compensate Clerk Gill M. Finley, or his successor(s) to this position, for the amount of $8.18 per week, beginning Monday, June 9, 1975, and continuing until the violation ceases.

 OPINION OF BOARD: On June 2, 1975, Carrier issued a bulletin
 abolishing eleven positions, including those of
 Rate and Miscellaneous Clerk. Rate and Utility Clerk, and Relief
 Rate-Utility, Rate and Assistant Chief Rate Clerk. Simultaneously,
 the Carrier advertised what it listed as "new positions" to replace
 most of the abolished positions. Three of the Claimants, formerly
 assigned to positions as Rate and Miscellaneous Clerk and Rate and
 Utility Clerk, took on the newly bulletined lower-rated positions of
 Trainbooker; one of the Claimants, formerly holding the position of
 Relief Rate-Utility, Rate and Assistant Chief Rate Clerk, took on the
                    Docket Number CL-21909


newly bulletined lower-rated position of Relief Trainbooker and Assistant Chief Clerk.

 The Claimants seek increases in their pay rates en their new positions to the pay rates which they formerly enjoyed, and the Organization claims violation of Rules 54, 56 and 70 is involved.

        The pertinent rules read as follows:


        RULE 54 - ADJUSTMENT OF RATES


        "When there is a sufficient increase or decrease in the duties and responsibilities of a position or change in the character of the service required, the compensation for such position will be subject to adjustment by mutual agreement with the duly accredited representative.


        Established positions will not be discontinued and new ones created under the same or different titles covering relatively the same class or grade of work, which will have the effect of reducing the rate of pay or evading the application of these rules."


        RULE 56 - NEW POSITIONS


        "The wages for new positions shall be in conformity with the wages for positions of similar kind or class in the seniority district where created. When there are no positions of similar kind or class where the new position or positions are created the rates of pay will be fixed by negotiation and agreement between the Director of Labor Relations and the General Chairman."


        RULE 70 - ESTABLISHED RATES


        "Rates of pay now in effect and established pursuant to agreements between the parties hereto shall continue in effect until changed as provided in existing wage agreements, by mutual agreement, or in accordance with the provisions of the Railway Labor Act, as amended."

                    Award Number 22323 Page 4

                    Docket Number CL-21909


As to Rule 54, the organization claims that the new jobs are "relatively the same class or grade of work," and the Carrier's action has the "effect of reducing the rate of pay."

 The Board finds insufficient merit or proof in this argument. The new positions do not include rate work, while rate work was an integral part of the former positions. This is true whether or not the rate work gradually diminished over the years as part of the former positions in actual practice.

 This brings us to Rule 56. "Trainbooker" is clearly a new position, a finding to which the Carrier readily agrees and which the Organization, in its claim on the property, uses as at least part of its claim.

 The Carrier argues that the wages for the new positions were properly set as directed in the first sentence of Rule 56; that is, "in conformity with the wages for positions of similar kind or class in the seniority district where created." In its letter to the Organization on September 26, 1975, and throughout the processing of the claim to the Board, the Carrier defines its position on this point. The September 16, 1975, letter, states:

        "The record clearly supports that the wages for the new positions of Trainbooker are in conformity with the similar position of Route Clerk, which rate was established for the new Trainbooker positions."


In addressing this particular point, the Organization argues that the Trainbooker position not only includes its own skills but also that of Route Clerk (or Route and Bill Clerk, as it may also be called).

 The parties, obviously have found no common ground as to the "positions of similar kind or class" to use as the proper wage rate for the Trainbooker positions. Ruder these circumstances, Rule 56 .makes specific provision for resolution of the dispute: "When there are no positions of similar kind or class where the new position or positions are created the rates of pay will be fixed by negotiation and agreement between the Director of Labor Relations and the General Chairman."
                    Award Number 22323 Page 5

                    Docket Number CL-21909


The Board will therefore remand this dispute to the parties for prompt resolution to determine if they can agree upon a position of similar kind or class on which to base the wage rate for the Trainbooker positions; and, if such agreement is not reached, to fix such rates of pay by negotiation and agreement between the Director of Labor Relations and the General Chairman, as directed by Rule 56. Claims as to violations of other portions of the Agreement will be denied.

 Aside from the merits of the dispute, the Carrier sought to prove procedural irregularities. The Board finds that these arguments are ill-founded, and the claim is in good order before the Board.

        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 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 dispute is remanded to the parties as to implementation 'of Rule 56; and that the Agreement was not otherwise violated.

                    A W A R D


Claim sustained as to Rule 56 only and is remanded to the parties as per the Opinion and Findings.

                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division

ATTEST: am?. zpzte~
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day of February 1979·