NATIONAL RAIIROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number CL-23050
Martin F. Scheinman, Referee
(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,
( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(The Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood (GL-8827)
that:
(a) The Carrier violated Rule 1 and others of the Clerks' General
Agreement during the hours of 6:30 A.M. and 2:30 P.M. on February 6, 1972;
during the hours of 10:30 P.M. February 6, to 6:30 A.M., February 7, 1972,
and during the hours from 6:30 A.M. to 2:30 P.M. on February 10, 1972 when
they required and allowed Trainmen, another craft and class, to perform messenger
duties.
(b) Claimant, Mrs. M. J. Bowling now be allowed eight (8) hours pay
at the pro rata rate of $34.97 per day account the violation which occurred
on February 6, 1972 between the hours of 6:30 A.M. and 2:30 P.M.
(c) Claimant J. E. Lisk now be allowed eight (8) hours pay at the
pro rata rate of $34.97 per day account the violation which occurred during
the hours of 10:30 P.M. February 6, to 6:30 A.M., February 7, 1972.
(d) Claimant Mrs. T. J. Nye now be allowed eight (8) hours pay at
the pro rata rate of $34.97 per day account the violation which occurred on
February 10, 1972 between the hours of 6:30 A.M. to 2:30 P.M.
OPINION OF BOARD: The Organization claims that Carrier violated the Scope Rule,
Rule 1, when it allowed Trainmen to perform messenger duties
on the following dates: February 6, 1972 between the hours of 6:30 a.m.
and 2:30 p.m.; February 6th and 7th, 1972 from 10:30 P.m. to 6:30 a.m.; and
6:30 a.m. to 2:30 P.m. on February 10, 1972. It asks that certain enumerated
claimants be compensated for work that they would have performed had Carrier
not assigned it to the improper craft.
Carrier, on the other hand, claims that the Organization does not have
the exclusive right to perform the duties in question. Therefore, it asserts
that no violation occurred.
On February 6, 7 and 10, 1972 during the above-noted times, the
pneumatic tube system which normally was used to transport lists between the
M~n
"s-d, the Office, the Towers and other locations was inoperative. Since
cue pneumatic tube system was not functioning, the Carrier permitted Trainmen
to deliver switch lists to the Towers, rather than calling in a clerical employe
to perform such tasks.
Award Number 23:. j Page 2
Docket Number CL-23050
The Organization and the Carrier recently presented the same underlying issue to this Board (George
By Award Number 23053, dated November 14, 1980, we denied the grievance and
held that the Scope Rule was not violated when Trainmen were used to deliver
switch lists to Car Retarder Operators in the Hump Towers at times when the
pneumatic tube system was inoperative. We held therein that clerks do not have
the exclusive entitlement to perform work pertaining to the pneumatic tubes.
Nothing presented here convinces us that our decision there was improper. As
such, consistent with the time honored doctrine of stare decisis, we will deny
the claim in its entirety.
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 aver
the dispute involved herein; and
That the Agreement was not violated.
A W A R D
Claim
denied.'
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order o! Third Division
Attest:
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 8th day of December
1981.