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 employe 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 waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.
As Third Parties in Interest, the United Transportation Union (UTU) and the Transportation Communications International Union (TCIU) were advised of the pendency of this dispute and filed Submissions with the Division.
Prior to the dates covered by this claim, carrier required Conductors to complete a Form 6571 (Conductor's Crew/Rest Register Slip & Train Handled/Delay Report), which summarized the train's delays en route, as well as provided information about the crew's tie up time and requests for rest. The delay information was used by the Dispatchers for completing their train sheets. The crew information was used by the Crew Callers as a basis for ordering crews consistent with applicable Agreements and the Hours of Service Law.
Ultimately, as a result of computerization, it became possible for the Conductors to enter the information which had previously been reported on Form 6571 directly into a coordinated Crew Management System and Centralized Train Dispatching System by using Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) terminals. Consequently, it was no longer necessary for Crew Callers or Dispatchers to enter this information manually on paper records.
Until these new systems were fully operational and CRT terminals were in place at all locations, it is apparent that Conductors either phoned or omnifaxed the Form 6571 to Clerks, who then either entered the information into the computer, or relayed it to Dispatchers who made the data entries. When this claim commenced, Conductors were making the data entries directly into the computer. The organization then filed this claim, asserting the Conductors are performing work reserved to Dispatchers. It claims this is a violation of Appendix 13 of the Agreement, which reads as follows: Form 1 Award No. 29618
According to the organization, prior to the times stated in part one of this claim, Conductors going off duty at Florence, South Carolina, and Rocky Mount, North Carolina, transmitted their Form 6571 reports to Dispatchers in the Jacksonville Centralized Train Dispatching Center (JCTDC) via facsimile machine. The information from the Florence Division was then entered into the computer by JCTDC Dispatchers. The Organization argues that once this work was assigned to Dispatchers, it could not later be assigned to Conductors or others.
The organization relies chiefly upon Third Division Award 27320 (ATDA and CSX Transportation), which involved an identical Rule and a claim that clerical employees were transmitting Research and Resolve validations of train authorizations. Finding this work was assigned to Dispatchers from the origin of the TOMS and CADS program until it was transferred to Clerks, the Board found the work then became work of the Dispatcher craft pursuant to the terms of the Agreement.
The Carrier first argues the work has always been performed by Conductors; it is only the format that has changed. It submits the Conductor has always prepared paper and pencil reports documenting the information contained in the Form 6571. The fact that the Conductor now records this information at a CRT terminal instead of on paper, according to the Carrier, does not violate the Agreement. It asserts it has a right to computerize any of its data collection operations and continue to have the same employee perform the work. Carrier says it has simply eliminated an unnecessary extra step in the recording process. Form 1 Award No. 29618
The Carrier has also referred to various Awards of this Division wherein the Board has denied claims that work was transferred from Clerks or Dispatchers when other employees made computer entries of data they had previously provided in handwritten form.
As a Third Party in Interest, the UTU has merely asserted the work involved in this dispute is work belonging to another craft, and not to Conductors/Trainmen. It notes this dispute had been presented to the First Division, NRAB. The TCIU, on the other hand, has taken the position the work belongs exclusively to neither the Dispatchers nor the Conductors. It avers Clerks had input the data contained in Form 6571 prior to the assignment of this work to Dispatchers. The TCIU notes it has presented its claim to this work to a Special Arbitration Board.
The Board notes that, prior to Hearing, both the UTU and the TCIU disputes were resolved. In First Division Award 24121, the Board denied the UTU's claim that making the data entries was outside the scope of the Conductors' Agreement. The Board held:
The September 6, 1991, Special Arbitration Board Award, cited above, denied the TCIU's claim that the Carrier improperly removed the data input work from Clerks and assigned it to employees not covered by the TCIU Agreement. In that dispute, the Board found:
Neither of these Awards, however, is dispositive of the issue before us. They merely hold that Conductors, under their Agreement, may be required to perform the work, and that Clerks, under the TCIU Agreement, do not have an exclusive claim to the work. We must still address Appendix 13, which, in essence, provides that data entry which is first performed by Dispatchers may not later be given to other crafts. Such was the holding in Third Division Award 27320.
Whether or not Appendix 13 was violated, however, depends upon a factual determination. The Organization must prove the work was assigned to Dispatchers from the origin, as was proven in Award 27320. We do not find that burden of proof to have been met in this case. To the contrary, it is evident Clerks made data entries from Form 6571 when the system first went on-line, at least at some locations on the property. Thus, the exclusion at the end of Appendix 13 applies. The Agreement, therefore, was not violated.