The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and an the evidence, finds that:
The carrier or carriers and the employee or employees involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employee 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.
The factual background upon which this claim is predicated is uncontested. During weekdays, given the volume of trains operating in regular service at Boston South Station, Carrier employs two Gatemen, an "inside" Gateman and an "outside" Gateman per morning shift and per afternoon shift. Gatemen work the platform and also operate the Solari Board located inside the station. The latter work of the "inside" Gateman entails announcing and posting trains. Given that the volume of trains operating in regular service on the weekends is less than one-half that on the weekdays, Carrier employs only one Gateman per morning shift and one Gateman per afternoon shift. On each of these shifts, the Gateman is performing the duties of the "outside" Gateman. The record evidence reflects that for over one year prior to the filing of the subject claim (February 10, 1993), the "outside" Gateman on the weekend fashioned an informal arrangement with the Information Clerks whereby the Information Clerks perform the duties of the "inside" Gateman, to wit, announcing and posting of trains but only on the weekends. Carrier denies it had any involvement in initiating this informal arrangement though it acknowledges that it condoned the concept.
The gist of the instant claim as described by the Organization is that since the work of Gatemen faVs under the jurisdiction of the Station Extra Board, also known as Extra Board Territory #2, whereas, the work of Information Clerks falls under the jurisdiction of the Ticket Office Extra Board, also known as Extra Board Territory #1, the informal arrangement existing between the weekend "outside" Gatemen and the Information Clerks violates various Agreement Articles governing the administration and operation of the extra board. The Organization contends that under the applicable Form I Award No. 32147
articles of agreement governing both extra boards, Carrier is prohibited from assigning work covered by Extra Board Territory #2 to employees, here, Information Clerks, whose work is covered by Extra Board Territory #1. Carrier presents as its primary defense that, the charge it is in violation of any of the cited Extra Board Agreement Articles, is unsupported by any and all argument proffered by the Organization, as the circumstances complained of do not involve an extra assignment, vacation, or other vacancy to be filled under the provisions of the Extra Board. Instead, Carrier argues, the employees already on duty and under pay, themselves, determined how they would best meet the needs of service, which determination was accepted by supervision. Carrier avers that said voluntary work arrangement did not deprive any employee of work nor deprive any including Claimant of lost overtime opportunities. The Organization counters with the argument that since the weekend "outside" Gatemen are burdened with performing all their duties and therefore find it difficult to also cover the duties of the "inside" Gatemen as well, then, in the absence of bulletening "inside" Gatemen positions on the weekend, Carrier should cover the work in question by utilizing the applicable extra board, rather than permitting employees whose work duties fail under a different extra board, here, Information Clerks under Extra Board Territory #1, to perform duties of the "inside" Gatemen. Carrier's defense with respect to this argument is that the Organization has failed to show, by any substantive evidence, that the work of announcing and posting trains belongs exclusively to the Gateman classification.
of this contention the Organization cites Third Division Awards 14679, 21048 and 22492.
In review of all argument asserted hereinabove, the Board concurs in Carrier's position that it is not guilty of violating the cited provisions of the Extra Board Agreement as the prevailing circumstances establish, without doubt, that there was no extra assignment, vacation, or other vacancy to be filled. Additionally, there is not sufficient evidence to support the Organization's allegation that absent the subject work arrangement, the volume of work associated with the duties of the "inside" Gateman on the weekends is so large that the work would have to be covered by calling someone from Extra Board Territory #2 to fill the position. In point of fact, the evidence before us strongly suggests that the work arrangement in question is a matter of convenience to both the Gateman and the Information Clerks rather than a matter of too much work for the "outside" Gateman to perform. Since the claim is confined to the allegation Carrier violated certain specified Extra Board Agreement Articles, we are constrained from going beyond the parameters of the claim to comment on the matter of whether Carrier, by its acquiescence, entered into a separate bargain with the employees in question when, by its own admission, it condoned the voluntary arrangement between the weekend "outside" Gateman and the Information Clerks at Boston South Station to perform the announcing and posting train duties assigned to "inside" Gatemen on the weekdays. The Board is further constrained from delving into this allegation based on a lack of information and evidence relevant to pertinent considerations such as exclusivity of the disputed work. Accordingly, we rule to deny the subject claim in its entirety.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.