NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number TD-26356
Rodney E. Dennis, Referee
(American Train Dispatchers Association
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Norfolk and Western Railway Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the American Train Dispatchers Association that:
(a) The Norfolk and Western Railway Company ('Carrier' or 'NW')
violated item 1 of a Memorandum of Understanding dated October
29, 1974 between the former Akron, Canton, and Youngstown Railroad Company ('AC&Y') and the Amer
Association ('ATDA'), when it transferred the duties of supervising all agents, operators and clerks
East Akron, Storehouse and Extra Board on the former AC&Y from
the first trick chief train dispatcher to the Superintendent of
Transportation-Chief Train Dispatcher effective 12:01 a.m.
October 3, 1983.
(b) Because of said violation, the Carrier shall now compensate
(1) the respective and successively senior train dispatcher
on the former AC&Y Train Dispatchers' seniority roster as
of 12:01 a.m. and 4:01 p.m. on October 3, 1983, and 12:01
a.m. and 4:01 p.m. on each date thereafter, one (1) day's
pay at the daily rate determined from the monthly rate
applicable to assistant chief-trick train dispatchers
under the former AC&Y schedule working conditions Agreement, and
(2) the respective and successively senior train dispatcher
on the former AC&Y Train Dispatchers' seniority roster as
of 8:01 a.m. on October 3, 1983 and 8:01 a.m. on each date
thereafter, one (1) day's pay at the daily rate determined
from 1159' of the monthly rate applicable to assistant
chief-trick train dispatchers under the former AC&Y
schedule working conditions Agreement,
in addition to any and all other compensation payable to said
Claimants for such dates, until said violation ceases."
OPINION OF
BOARD: Pursuant to an Arbitrated Implementing Agreement dated
September 16, 1983, all train dispatching work on the Akron,
Canton and Youngstown Railroad was to be transferred to the Norfolk and Western Railway's train disp
1983. Effective the same date, the names and seniority dates of former AC&Y
Train Dispatchers were dovetailed into the Brewster Train Dispatchers' Seniority Roster.
Award Number 26315 Page 2
Docket Number TD-26356
This dispute arose when the Employes charged that certain work
reserved to the ACSY Train Dispatchers was not transferred to the Brewster
office, October 3, 1983, but was instead assigned to a Carrier Officer.
The Carrier raised a multitude of defenses during on-property handling and before this Board, on
view of our decision based on one of these procedural issues, no useful purpose would be served by a
Article I of the September 16, 1983 Implementing Agreement provided,
in pertinent part:
...train dispatchers on the AC&Y District
dispatchers office roster whose names do not
appear on the Brewster train dispatchers roster
will be dovetailed into the Brewster train
dispatchers roster in accordance with their
seniority dates, and such train dispatchers
shall thereafter be subject to the provisions of
the former Wheeling and Lake Erie Agreement
effective November 1, 1947 as amended and
supplemented
...."
The Claimants on whose behalf the Claim is filed have no standing on
the former AC&Y Seniority Roster, but were instead made subject to the WSLE
Agreement. The contractual provision upon which the Claim is founded no
longer applies to these Claimants.
While the Employes argued on the property that the act of dovetailing these Claimants into the W
from the former ACSY Roster, such argument does not accord with the very
purpose of the Implementing Agreement. While the Implementing Agreement did
not explicitly terminate the AC&Y Agreement, it did not explicitly preserve
it, either. But the Implementing Agreement did remove the Claimants from the
AC&Y Agreement's coverage.
Further, it is noted that in exchanges on the property, the Carrier
pointed out:
...The AC&Y Train Dispatcher's Seniority Roster
was discontinued at the time these train dispatching forces were coordinated into Brewster,
Ohio, and accordingly no such roster was issued
January 1, 1984. Further, no protest was made
within the time limits set forth in Article 4(b)
of the AC&Y ATDA Schedule Agreement. Therefore,
as of the date of coordination, and at the very
latest January 1, 1984, there were no dispatchers on the former AM Seniority Roster and
accordingly there were no claimants from that
time on."
Award Number 26315 Page 3
Docket Number TD-26356
That argument was not answered on the property nor in the Employes'
Submissions. It therefore is considered factual.
In short, even if the merits of this dispute were found to warrant a
sustaining Award, there are no Claimants with any standing to enjoy the Agreement's benefits. We sha
merits and the Claim will be dismissed without addressing either the merits or
the other procedural issues.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving the
parties to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon, and upon the
whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:
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 Agreement upon which the Claim is founded no longer applies
to Claimants.
A W A R D
Claim dismissed.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
Attest:
_<~z
Nancy J. D v - Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois this 13th day of May 1987.