Someone other than a CSR at the CSC performed the reissuing of work order function at Savannah. Savannah was one of the locations covered by the 1991 Implementing Agreement that transferred work from the field to the CSC. See Attachment A to that Agreement. As shown by statements provided by the Clerks, the disputed function concerning issuance of work orders was performed by Clerks at Savannah before the CSC was established and by CSRs after the work was transferred to the CSC. (TCIU Exhibit 24 at 122, 162, 198, 213, 248, 252 and 265; Clerks Cummings, Horton, Miller, Strom, Taylor, Tompkins and Welch state that they performed work order functions at Savannah and at the CSC ["Also assigned . . . to the Clerical Craft, then and now, are the work order functions used to issue work orders (all trains), depart all work orders, complete all work orders, and update all work orders, using the following computer functions: WOIS, WOTD, WOCO, WOAW, WOWI, WOTR, and since transferring to Jacksonville, WOCA and WOAY"].) See also, the General Director, Customer Service Administration's letter of January 23, 2001 concerning this claim where she states ". . . my investigation could not dispute that this violation did take place." The standards discussed in Third Division Award 37227 have been shown by the Organization.
Public Law Board No. 6409, Award 16 which was relied upon by the Carrier does not change the result. That Award did not discuss the ramifications of the 1991 Implementing Agreement or the effect of Public Law Board No. 5782 which were discussed at length in Third Division Award 37227. Further, we note that Award 16 makes reference to coverage °1. . . depending upon the particular operative facts at each location." That location by location treatment is precisely the analysis that has been used in Third Division Award 37227 and in this matter.
Under the rationale stated in Third Division Award 37227, this claim shall be sustained at the $15.00 requirement.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimant(s) be made. The Carrier is ordered to make the Award effective on or before 30 days following the postmark date the Award is transmitted to the parties.
DOCKETS CL-37035; CL-37046; CL-37053; CL-37054;
CL-37058; CL-37075; CL-37083; CL-37087; CL-37093; CL-37111
The instant Third Division Award 37227 and companion Awards dealt with the issue of the performance of various computer functions such as adjusting yard inventory, reporting bad order freight cars and issuing work orders at field locations by Yardmasters and Clerks.
The clerical field computer input work was coordinated into the Customer Service Center located in Jacksonville, Florida, beginning in 1991 via what is commonly known as the "Visions Agreement." Because this coordination involved work from various former railroads that are now part of CSXT, that Agreement was an Implementing Agreement reached pursuant to, and in satisfaction of, the New York Dock employee protective conditions of the Interstate Commerce Commission, now the Surface Transportation Board.
The claims were filed for occasions when computer functions were performed at field locations after the coordination. The Board found that the Customer Service Center Clerks were aggrieved when Yardmasters and Clerks in the field performed various computer functions.
A reading of the Board's Award makes clear that an interpretation of the 1991 New York Dock Implementing Agreement was at the heart of the dispute between the Carrier and TCU. It is well settled that the Board lacks subject matter jurisdiction over disputes involving New York Dock implementing agreements. See e. ., Third Division Awards 29317, 29660, 35360, and 37138. Disputes requiring the interpretation or application of a New York Dock implementing agreement must be handled in accordance with the exclusive arbitration procedures set forth in New York Dock. CARRIER MEMBERS' DISSENT TO
Although the participants did not raise this threshold jurisdictional issue, the Board's subject matter ,jurisdiction cannot be enlarged through a mistake of the parties. Even when the parties do not raise tile issue, the Board can do so itself. Because the Board lacked subject matter jurisdiction in this case, it exceeded its ,jurisdiction as defined in the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. § 153, First, and Awards 37227 - 37236 should be considered null and void and without any precedential effect for this reason alone.
In addition, the Board missed or chose to ignore a basic issue in this case. This computer work was performed by Yardmasters, Clerks and other employees prior to the consolidation of the clerical customer service work into the Customer Service Center in Jacksonville. The Carrier's New York Dock notice to TCU of its intent to coordinate and consolidate the clerical customer service work into Jacksonville was to do only that -- consolidate the work performed by Clerks. The notice (lid not propose to transfer the work of Yardmasters. It is important to note that the UTU-Yardmasters Department was not named in the New York Dock notice served on TCU and was not a party to the 1991 Implementing Agreement. The implementing agreement procedures of New York Dock, Article I, Section 4, require that the UTU-Yardmasters Department be a party to an implementing agreement that purported to coordinate work performed by Yardmasters and transfer it to another craft's Collective Bargaining Agreement. The record shows that the UTU-Yardmasters Department was not a party to the 1991 Implementing Agreement. Accordingly, neither the Carrier nor TCU had the right or authority under the 1991 Implementing Agreement to transfer work performed by Yardmasters to Jacksonville in order to give it to Clerks. With a swipe of the proverbial pen, the Board has taken work "shared" between at least two crafts at field locations prior to 1991 and given it exclusively to a single craft.
The Award's crafted language cannot circumvent this issue, nor justify the conclusion that Yardmasters can no longer perform work they had done in the past. The Award is based upon an erroneous analysis of the facts of the case, contrary to the requirements of the New York Dock conditions, and no amount of rationalization can support removal of existing work from the Yardmaster craft. Most importantly, these Awards exceed the jurisdiction of tile Board. CARRIER MEMBERS' DISSENT TO