Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 28640
THIRD DIVISION Docket No. TD-28719
91-3-89-3-113
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Eckehard Muessig when award was rendered.
(American Train Dispatchers Association
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
"Please allow 8 hours pay at Time and One-Half for January 7, 1988
[also January 8, 14, 15, 21, 22, 1988] as I was home and available and not
called to work entering freight and passenger consists into the CETC computer"
[Carrier file NEC-ATDA-SD-86]
FINDINGS:
The Third Division of the Adjustment Board upon the whole record and
all the evidence, finds that:
The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this
dispute are respectively carrier and employes within the meaning of the
Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the
dispute involved herein.
Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.
In this case, the Organization asserts that the Carrier violated
"Rule 1 - Scope" when employees, other than Dispatchers, entered data directly
into a computer. The Rule in question reads in pertinent part:
"Rule 1 - Scope
(a) *~,~
(b) x,~e
(c) Definition of Trick, Relief and Extra
Train Dis atcMcFM Poions. This class includes
positions in duties of incumbents are
to be primarily responsible for the movement of
trains over a defined territory by train orders,
or otherwise; to supervise forces employed in
handling train orders, to keep necessary records
incident thereto; to perform related work as may
be assigned by the Chief or Assistant Chief Dis
patcher.
Form 1 Award No. 28640
Page 2 Docket No. TD-28719
91-3-89-3-113
(d) x~:
(e) This Scope, Rule 1, is intended to retain for employees covered by this Agreement the
same work jurisdiction said employees had on the
former Penn Central Railroad. It is not the
intent of Corporation to apply this Scope, Rule
1 in such manner as to divert work covered by
Rule 1, from employees covered thereby."
Pursuant to Section 153, First (j) of the Railway Labor Act, as amended,
notice was given to the Transportation Communications International Union
(TCU) of this Claim since that Organization was a possible party of interest.
The TCU filed an intervening brief.
In the Fall of 1987, the Carrier implemented its Centralized Electrification and Traffic Control
information (such as freight and,passenger consists) is entered into the CETC
system through computer terminals by a Data Access Clerk. Prior to the
it
plementation of CETC, this data was given to Dispatchers who manually recorded
it on their respective train sheets. The Dispatchers continue to use the data
in connection with their responsibility for a train's movements.
While a voluminous record has been developed in this case, reflecting
the complexity of the issues raised, the main issue is the question of whether
the act of entering ("inputting") data into the computer record by Clerks or
others has eliminated the work of Dispatchers to maintain the permanent record
of train movement. These tasks, it argues, have been an integral part of the
"related work" contemplated in "Rule 1 - Scope."
The Board has carefully reviewed the record, including the many
Awards cited by the parties. We note from this review that certain materials
and arguments have been presented for the first time to this body. Pursuant
to our mandate, these "first time" materials have not been considered in our
deliberations.
With respect to those matters properly before us, we find that while
the procedural contentions are not without some merit, this case is beat resolved on its merits.
Clearly, the Organization, in its vigorous defense of this Claim is
rightfully concerned with what it views as an erosion of its work. What has
occurred is that, in those sections of the TCarrier's network where CETC was
implemented, train sheets were eliminated. The data that formerly had been
placed on the train sheets by the Dispatcher is now placed directly into the
computer by the Data Clerk. However, the Dispatcher continues to use the data
in the performance of his duties.
Form 1 Award No. 28640
Page 3 Docket No. TD-28719
91-3-89-3-113
In suaaary, there was an elimination of an intermediate step in the
processing of data, and we find no violation of the Agreement under the facts
presented.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
Attest: .
ancy J. -Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this'29th day of January 1991.
"'`4
Diva
mark DISC'
Z-Z$-91
~ J~ ~s s-c~-~'~S
Labor Member's Dissent
Award No. 28640 - Docket TD-28719
Dissent to this award is necessary for a number of
reasons.
First, improved methods of performing a particular job
function, in and of themselves, do not serve as the
determining factor when considering the class of employee
that the work accrues to.
Third Division Award
No.
20703 -
"The Board has consistently followed a well
established principle that the character of the
work performed by a machine would determine the
craft from which its operator was drawn. See
Awards 4546, 4547, 13517, 14004, 19038, 19542 and
Second Division Awards 244, 1829, 3405."
[underlining added]
Third Division Award
No.
22421 -
... .-
"This Board has consistently held that the
purpose for which work is-performed determines the
craft."
Public Law Board No. 2555`-Award
No 1 -
"The Board finds that the thrust of this case
must devolve upon the primary or core issue that
the work being performed is Yardmaster work,
rather than as to the instrumentality being
utilized to Perform the work."
[underlining added]
Page 2
Labor Member's Dissent
Award 28640 - Docket 28719
The nature of this disputed work, involved the
maintenance of the Carriers permanent record, via the
computer keystroke entering of train identification, engine
numbers, crew names, reporting times and car counts into the
Carrier's "CETC" computer system. Clearly, the entering of
this information pertains to the movement of trains and is
the type of work that falls with the confines of Scope Rule
1(c).
Second, Scope Rule 1(e) retained "...for employees
covered by this Agreement the same work jurisdiction said
employees had on the former Penn Central Railroad."
The Organization, during on the property handling of
this dispute, presented numerous statements from several
experienced Train Dispatchers proving that the work at issue
was performed by Train Dispatchers when working for the
former Penn Central Railroad.
0
For reasons clear only to the majority, these
statements were either discounted or dismissed entirely.
Third, Award 28640 finds that "...there was an
elimination of an intermediate step in the processing of
data..." and therefore found "...no violation...".
Page 3
Labor Member's Dissent
Award 28640 - Docket TD-28719
When a contractual obligation exists, as herein,
elimination of an intermediate step is a violation of the
Agreement.
Third Division Award No 26137
...Whatever may be the Carrier's intent, the
elimination of the 'Middle Man' in this instant
case is a violation of the Agreement."
Therefore, I dissent.
i
L. A. Parmelee
Labor Member