NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number CL-24018
Herbert Fishgold, Referee
(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,
( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood (GL-9388)
that:
(1) Carrier violated, and continues to violate, the Clerk-Telegrapher
Agreement when, on July 2, 1977 and continuing, it requires and permits Yardmasters,
employees not covered thereby, to perform clerical work around the clock seven (7)
days per week, including the tearing off of message reports of cars from a teletype
receiving unit installed and in operation at Mount Clare Yard, Baltimore, Maryland,
and
(2) Carrier shall, as a result, compensate the following listed clerical
employees at Baltimore, Maryland, each, eight (8) hours' pay for the shifts shown,
seven (7) days per week, commencing July 2, 1977, and continuing for so long as
the violation exists:
7:00 AM - 3:00 PM - L. C. Brannon
3:00 PM - 11:00 PM - A. G. Bruchsch
11:00 PM - 7:00 AM - C. W. Barr
OPINION OF BOARD: This dispute, one of six involving the same issue between the
parties, concerns the Carrier's right to permit Yardmasters
to "tear off" a list of freight cars, a "switch list," from a receiving machine
following transmittal by use of telecommunications printers at Baltimore, Maryland.
By way of background, on July 1, 1977, Carrier established a Terminal
Service Center at Baltimore, Maryland, The Teaninal Service Center concept
contemplates the retention of a perpetual inventory of cars moved into and out of
the terminal, and eliminates the necessity of most daily track checking. Claimants
had been assigned to positions in Mount Clare Yard, Baltimore, Maryland prior to
the movement of their work to the new data center on July 1, 1977. Effective that
date, Carrier abolished all clerical positions at Mount Clare Yard. As a result,
Yardmasters were the only employees remaining on duty at the Mount Clare Yard.
The Company installed a Kleinschmidt RO Printer in the Yard Office
at Mount Clare . Three-ply paper is used and as lists of cars are transmitted to
the yard office, the Yardmasters are able to tear off the sheets they need along
the perforation. It is this "tearing off" of the sheets from the RO Printer
and the "separating" of the three copies of switch list that gives rise to this
dispute.
Award Number 24865
Docket Number CL-24018 Page 2
The organization conterds that by so doing, the Carrier is causing and
permitting emplocWes not covered by the Clerks-Telegraphers Agreement to operate
such communication receiving devices, including the work of removing (tearing
off) and separating message reports of cars from such devices.
The dispute involves the parties' Scope Rule and Rule 67, Printing and
Telegraph Machines. Claims that the Yardmaster's tearing off the list and separating
the copies violated Rule 67 began to be received on all carrier's properties.
Since the dispute could not be resolved on the property, the Organization processed
a December 1975 claim in the Cincinnati yard office and presented it to this
Board for adjudication. The Board sustained the claim in Award 22912 (Kosher)
which, however, reduced the claim of eight hours pay "for work that took just a
few seconds to perform" to a three-hour call.
Thereafter, this Board, with this Referee sitting, in Award 24861 - the
first of the six pending disputes involving the same issue - after reviewing
Award 22912 and the contracts, arguments and facts in Award 24861, concluded
that the opinion reached in Award 22912 was correct. In so doing, this Board
determined that, contrary to the Carrier's argument, Article 36 was not adopted
unchanged in Rule 67 as regards the issue in dispute, and that read in the
context of Rule 75, "the express and ambiguous language of Rule 67, with no stated
exception comporting with the Carrier's argument," does not allow Yardmasters to
"tear-off" and/or "separate" switch lists.
Having found the claims to be sustained, this Board next addressed the
question of appropriate remedy. In agreeing with Referee Kasher's remedy of
three-hour call pay in Award 22912, this Board noted that while "some may regard
such payment as excessive,"
"...the clear meaning of language may be enforced even though the
results are harsh or contrary to the original expectations of one of
the parties. In such cases, the result is based upon the clear
language of the contract, not upon the equities involved."
Continuity in the interpretation of contract rules is highly desirable,
and such interpretations should not be overruled without strong and compelling
reasons. There is nothing presented in the consideration of the instant decision
which in any meaningful way can serve to distinguish the rationale of the decision
in this dispute from that in Award 22912 since it involves interpretation of
contract language. The parties are the same, the agreement is the same, and the
facts are virtually identical. Having assessed the intent of the parties as
evidenced by the contract language, we conclude that the opinion reached in Award
22912, as confirmed in Award 24861, is the correct one.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Bbard, upon the whole record and
all the evidence, finds and holds:
Award Number 24865
Docket Number CL-24018 Page 3
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 appm ved
June 21, 1934;
That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the
dispute involved herein; and
That the Agreement was violated.
A W A R D
Claim sustained in accordance with the Opinion.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Thizd Division
ATTEST:
Nancy Jr - Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day of June, 1984