The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all 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.

Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.

As Third Party in Interest, the United Transportation Union - Yardmaster Department was advised-of the pendency of this dispute, but it chose not to tile a Submission with the Board.

On January 19, 1994, the Organization initiated a continuing claim contending that the Carrier improperly reassigned the disuatchine of taxis and limousines to transport train and engine employees at Walbridge, Ohio, from employees covered by the scope of the Agreement to persons not covered by the scope of the Agreement. In essence, the Organization argued that regardless of whether the Carrier uses taxis or limousines to transport train and engine crews, the work of disoatchina those taxis and limos belongs exclusively to the clerical craft per Rule 1 of the Agreement. The Organization further avers that the December 4, 1990 Memorandum of Agreement refers solely to crew hauling as opposed to dispatching the mode of transportation for hauling crews. In support of its position, the Organization cites internal correspondence dated December 6,1990 from the Carrier's Assistant Vice President of Labor Relations to the Division Manager at Walbridge. The Organization seeks a day's pay for each of five Claimants until the alleged Rule 1 violation ceases. Also, the Organization petitions the Board to issue an order that the work be reassigned to Administrative Clerks or Assistant Chief Clerks.

The Carrier responds that, both before and after the consummation of the December 4, 1990 Memorandum of Agreement, Yardmasters dispatched Crew Haulers regardless of who actually performed the work of transporting crews. The Carrier also contends that the December 4, 1990 Memorandum of Agreement definitively disposed

of any claims surrounding the transporting of train and engine service employees at Walbridge. Finally, the Carrier submits that the Organization misinterpreted the Assistant Vice President's internal correspondence.

Sections 4(a) and 4(b) of the December 4, 1990 Memorandum of Agreement read:

"(a) The parties further agree that on and after the date this agreement is signed, any functions relating to transporting train and engine crews or other Carrier employees, and/or Carrier documents pertaining to conducting of the Carrier's business, to and from or within Walbridge, Ohio and its environs (including Presque Isle), may be accomplished in any manner deemed feasible by the Carrier, including (but not limited to) the utilization of taxi service or other outside services; and that the performance of these functions in this manner shall not constitute a violation of any provision of the Schedule Agreement between the Carrier and the Organization party signatory to this agreement, or any addenda or interpretations applicable to that Schedule Agreement.

(b) It was further understood and agreed that all claims and grievances originating at Walbridge, Ohio and its environs (including Presque Isle, Ohio) involving the issues that are described above, whether or not such claims and grievances have been submitted in writing and are at a subsequent state of handling by the parties or are being held in abeyance by any party for subsequent submission and/or handling, are hereby withdrawn and disposed of in their entirety in exchange for the considerations and agreements set forth herein; and no further claims or disputes involving issues resolved herein will be submitted or progressed by any party."

Section 4(a) of the December 4,1990 Memorandum of Agreement announces that ". . . any functions relating to transporting train and engine crews . . ." can be accomplished in any fashion as dictated by the Carrier. This language is plain and unambiguous. The term "any functions" is all encompassing and includes any duties "relating to" crew hauling. Disipatching taxis or limousines is a function integral to transporting crews. Indeed, a crew cannot be hauled unless some form of transportation is dispatched to pickup and carry train and engine service employees.

98-3-97-3-17