Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Award No. 30239
Docket No. CL-29880
94-3-91-3-376
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee James E. Mason when award was rendered.
(Transportation Communications International
(Union
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Railway Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
"Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood
(GL-10605) that:
1. Carrier violated the effective Telegraphers'
Agreement when, on and after April 12, 1990,
it removed work of preparing waybills from the
position of Agent at Plainfield, Illinois, and
assigned such work to employees not covered
thereby:
2. Carrier shall now compensate Mr. F. R.
Scagnelli and/or his successor or successors
in interest, namely, any other employee or
employees who have stood in the status of
Claimant as occupant of the position of Agent,
Plainfield, and as such have been adversely
affected for one (1) hour's pay at the time
and one-half rate of such position for April
12, 1990, and for each and every day
thereafter that a like violation occurs."
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 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.
Form 1 Award No. 30239
Page 2 Docket No. CL-29880
94-3-91-3-376
This dispute involves a claim on behalf of the Freight Agent
at Plainfield, Illinois, for payment of one (1) hour of pay at the
punitive rate for each day on which the Agency Sill Clerks at Gary,
Indiana, perform certain work which the Organization contends
belongs to the Agent and his position and which, it is contended,
was improperly "transferred" from the Agent's position to the
Clerks' positions.
The operative facts in this case are reasonably clear and not
really in dispute. Prior to the time of these claims, the Agent at
Plainfield would receive shipment information from the individual
shippers from which he would manually prepare a hard-copy waybill
which would accompany the shipment. At the same time that he
prepared the waybill, the Agent would transmit all of the shipment
information and a copy of the prepared waybill to the Carrier's
Agency department at Gary where clerical employees would enter all
of the information received into Carrier's computer system.
With the advent of RAILINC - an Association of American
Railroads device and plan to move freight cars in interline service
without accompanying paper waybills - an Electronic Data Interchange operation was established. Unde
claimant Agent continued to receive the shipment information from
the individual shipper, but there was now no need for him to
manually prepare a paper waybill to accompany the shipment.
Rather, the Agent was required only to transmit a copy of the
shipper's information to the Gary Agency office where, as
previously done, the clerical employee entered the information into
the Electronic Data Interchange computer which, in accomplishment
of the objective of moving freight cars in interline service
without accompanying paper documents, transmitted all necessary
information in connection with the shipment.
The organization in its presentation of this dispute point out
that, on this property, the provisions of Article VIII of the
National Agreement of February 25, 1971, which permitted the
consolidation of Clerk-Telegraphers (Agents) Agreements was never
implemented. Therefore, the Organization correctly observes that
the separate Agreements of the Clerks and Telegraphers (Agents)
remain in effect as written. It argues that the separate Scope
Rule of the Telegrapher's (Agents) on this property prohibits the
transfer of work from that craft to the clerical craft. The
Organization continues its argument by contending that inasmuch as
this Carrier failed to take advantage of the consolidation of
Clerk-Telegrapher Rules under the aforementioned 1971 National
Agreement, it is precluded in this instance from having the
waybills covering shipments from the jurisdiction of the Plainfield
Agent prepared by Clerks under any circumstances.
Form 1 Award No. 30239
Page 3 Docket No. CL-29880
94-3-91-3-376
The pertinent portion of the Telegrapher's Scope Rule, as
quoted to the Board by the Organization, reads as follows:
"SCOPE AND WORK OF EMPLOYES AFFECTED
ARTICLE 1 SCOPE
(a) These rules shall govern the rates
of pay and working conditions of all
employes engaged in the work of the
craft on positions identified in
paragraph (b).
(b) Positions and/or work thereof
outlined below are generally
representative of those within the
craft or class:
Agents (included in wage
scale)
Agent -- Telegraphers
Agent -- Telephoners
* * * * *
Any combination of two or more of the above
classifications
* * * * *
(d) Improvements .or changes in methods of
performing work covered by this agreement
shall not operate to take the work out
from under this agreement.
The Carrier recognizes the right of the
Organization to seek a wage adjustment for a
specific position(s) within thirty (30) days
after there is a major change in duties or
responsibilities resulting from consolidation
and/or abolishing positions.
INTERPRETATION:
This Paragraph (d) shall not operate to prevent
the Carrier from consolidating and/or abolishing
positions covered by this agreement due to such
improvements or changes.
* * * * *11
Form 1 Award
No. 30239
Page
4
Docket
No. CL-29880
94-3-91-3-376
The Carrier contends that, in the first place, there was no
"transfer" of work from the Agent to the Clerk. Rather, it contend
that the manual preparation of a waybill ceased to be a necessary
work function of anyone with the advent of RAILINC and Electronic
Data Interchange. Carrier further argues that under the provisions
of the National Agreement dated April 15,
1986,
specifically
Article V thereof, the technological changes here involved were
made possible. Article V referenced herein reads as follows:
"ARTICLE V - ELECTRONIC DATA INTERCHANGE
Section 1 - Scope Rules
Except as provided in Section 2 nothing in
this Article shall be construed to permit the
removal of work and functions currently
covered under individual scope rules at the
property level.
Section 2 - Data Interchange
Electronic data may be transmitted, received
and exchanged among railroads and between them
and their shippers and/or receivers (or their
agents), including the use of Railinc or other
similar data switching services, without any
requirement that employees represented by the
organization signatory hereto participate in
such function. Input and retrieval of data
between railroads and their shippers and/or
receivers (or their agents) must be related to
the shipper's or receiver's business.
Section 3 - Recxuest for Information
If requested by the organization, the carrier
will furnish on a monthly basis the name and
location of customers accessing its computers
under this Agreement and the estimated time
utilized for data entry.
Section 4 - Savings Provision
(a) Nothing in this Article is intended
to restrict any of the existing
,rights of a carrier.
(b) This Article shall become effective
Form 1 Award No. 30239
Page 5 Docket No. CL-29880
94-3-91-3-376
15 days after the date of this
Agreement except on such carriers as
may elect to preserve existing rules
or practices and so notify the
authorized employee representative
on or before such effective date."
Carrier continues by arguing that the basic function of
waybill preparation is not work which is reserved exclusively to
Agents and that under the provisions of the general type Scope Rule
as found in the Telegrapher's Agreement on this property, there is
no prohibition on the carrier against having Clerks generate
waybills which are an incidental by-product of a labor saving
device which changed the method of waybill preparation and
completely eliminated the need for manual preparation.
The Board has repeatedly held that the installation of
labor-saving devices and techniques which result in the elimination
of work functions does not give rise to violations of Scope Rules.
As the Board held in Third Division Award 19468:
"We are not dealing with a case in which one class of
employee now performs work which formerly was done by
Claimant. We are dealing with a situation in which data
processing equipment performs work which formerly was
done manually."
This position finds support in Third Division Awards 23458,
25693, and 27975, as well as Second Division Award 11503.
On the basis of these well reasoned Awards and in the absence
of any contravening probative evidence from the Organization, the
Board has no recourse but to deny the Claim as presented on the
basis that there has been no proven violation of the Telegrapher's
Scope Rule.
AWARD
Claim denied.
Form 1 Award No. 30239
Page 6 Docket No. CL-29880
94-3-91-3-376
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
Attest:
Linda Woods - Arbitration Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 8th day of June 1994.