This dispute is one of an increasingly common variety concerning the effects of implementation of ne this instance, the claim involves the placing on line of the Locomotive Management System, itself in computer application.
The Director of Labor Relations, in his September 6, 1990 reply to the Claim appeal, put it this way:
As a threshold procedural issue, the Carrier argues that the Claim is deficient in that it "fails to identify a proper claimant who would have been available to perform the disputed work." In these circumstances, the Board does not find this to bar review of the dispute on its merits. The Claim clearly sets forth the proposition that Inventory Clerks have b claim were sustained, identification of affected employees would pose no difficulty.
The Carrier also takes exception to the remedy sought (one day's pay) in view of the brief amount of time involved in entering the contested data. As will be seen below, further consideration of this issue is not required. Form 1 Award No. 30038
The record shows extensive discussion as to whether the Scope Rule of January 1, 1973, or the revised Scope Rule of June 1, 1981, should be considered applicable here. This question is not significant, since the Board finds, as argued by the Carrier, that the issue is not transfer of scope-covered work, but rather, the elimination of one portion of data transmission.
In consonance with other Awards in similar circumstances, the Board finds here that there was, in fact, no transfer of work. The data involved was originated by the Assistant Trainmaster before the introduction of the Locomotive Management System, and the Assistant Trainmaster continues in control thereof. The introduction of the new program, together wi and screens available, simply eliminates the double process of handwriting data and then having it entered into the computer. As indicated by the analysis of both the Organization and the Carrier, quoted above, the sole function lost by the Claimants is entry of data: they did not previously change, develop or restructure such data.
In sum, there is no demonstrated Rule violation in the technological extension of the computer, intermediate step. That some part of a clerical function was eliminated is obvious, but not prohibited. Third Division Award 25693 concerns a claim by Train Dispatchers as to being deprived of entering and maintaining train data. That Award concluded:
The Organization cites previous sustaining Awards which it contends were reached under similar circumstances. Some or all of these are distinguishable from the dispute here under review. For example, Public Law Board No. 2668, Award 120 concerned not only use of a computer but also the actual work of "maintaining the inventory of freight cars" which was found to be transferred from Form 1 Award No. 30038
A Dissent is required in the case at bar because the Majority opinion has erred and issued a decision which is incorrect and fails to follow the more thoughtful decisions regarding transfer of work.
The facts are not in dispute. The claim arose in Louisville, Kentucky, when on September 17, 1989, the Carrier issued instructions to implement the Locomotive Management System, which resulted in the input of certain raw data Processing work being removed form coverage and assigned to Assistant Trainmaster not covered by the Agreement.
The Majority recognized such in the second paragraph on page 3 wherein it stated:
That's exactly what the case was about the Protection of work exclusively assigned to Inventory Clerks. One would think after reading the aforementioned that the logical extension and conclusion of the Board's findings would be since the Claimants had lost the opportunity to continue to input the raw data it was clear
there had been a transfer of work in violation of the Agreement instead of an elimination thus the claim should be sustained.
Unfortunately the Majority opinion's logic does not coincide with it's fact finding. After determining that the disputed work was taken from Clerks and given to Carrier Officers they simply chose to call that elimination rather than transference. In doing such the Majority has simply participated in semantical gimickery.
It is not disputed and it stands unrefuted that the work in question had always been done by Inventory Clerks. It is their work which can be eliminated, but not continued in part or whole, directly or indirectly by others foreign to the Agreement who have not previously performed the work. There is no indication in the record that Assistant Trainmasters have ever performed the work in the past nor is there any proof that clerical functions have ceased to exist. The same work is still being done except by different employes. The Scope Rule in dispute is a "position and work" Scope Rule that protects both Positions and work. In this instance the Board has failed in it's responsibility to enforce the integrity of the Agreement so as to protect the work in dispute.
for the foregoing reasons Award 30038 carries no precedential value and requires strenuous dissent. Respectfully submitted,
CARRIER MEMBERS' RESPONSE TO
LABOR MEMBER'S DISSENT TO
AWARD 30038, DOCKET CL-29943
(Referee Marx)
The decision issued by the Majority was well reasoned and follows a long line of Awards regarding the elimination of an intermediate step.
The Organization has steadfastly endeavored to persuade Referees that the use of a computer by anyone other than a Clerk violates the Scope Rule of its Agreement, under the guise that the disputed work was transferred. This Award, as well as a host of other similar Awards, recognizes that Clerks do not have the exclusive right to enter data into the computer.
The Majority realized that the new procedure that precipitated this dispute eliminated a duplication of effort, when it stated in the second paragraph on page 3:
Rather than give the handwritten data to a Clerk to type into the computer, the Assistant Trainmaster enters the data directly, which eliminated an intermediate step.