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.
This is certainly not a case of "first impression." The issue in this case has been considered at length and with admirable clarity by previous Boards cited in the body of this Award. Moreover, the history of this and similar cases is laid out in great detail in Third Division Award 37227.
The instant case arose when the Organization filed its January 2, 2002 claim alleging that a Data Processing Clerk at Busch, Florida, (part of the former SCL territory) had used the LIPS (Industry Inventory Plant Switch) computer function to issue plant switch instructions to a train crew at Blount Island, Florida, on November 18, 2001. In its claim the Organization asserted that the task should have been performed by a Clerk in the Customer Service Center (CSC) in Jacksonville, Florida.
The Carrier denied the claim by letter dated March 6, 2002 on three grounds: first, that the work performed by Data Processing Clerk R. D. Keefauver has always been performed by that position at that location; second, the claim was defective on its face, because the Organization failed to specify a Claimant by name; and third, that even if, arguendo, there was a violation, the amount of compensation claimed was disproportionate to the actual time spent. At no time in its denial did the Carrier deny that the work had been performed by Clerk Keefauver as alleged in the Organization's claim.
The Organization asserts that in this case it has met the "three tests" set out in Third Division Award 37227. In that Award, the Board held the following:
Specifically, the Organization notes that the Carrier, in its first denial of the claim, admitted that Clerk Keefauver performed the work at Busch, Florida, on November 18, 2001. Moreover, the Carrier also acknowledged that "this work has always been performed by this position at this location." With respect to the final of the three tests, the Organization points out that the 1999 Job Bulletin of the Data Processing Clerk position at Busch Yard does not list the disputed duties - eight years after the CSC was established - while the 1991 Position Description for Customer Service Representatives includes the duties "make patron notifications; process switching and other work orders."
Finally, the Organization maintains that this and other Boards have held that where it is a simple matter of reviewing employment records to ascertain, for example, which employees were on duty when the alleged violation occurred, claims that do not specify a named Claimant, if otherwise sufficient, are not procedurally defective. On that threshold point the Board concurs. Accordingly, we may reach the merits of this matter.
The Board reviewed the entire record in this case, including the preceding Awards cited by both parties to the dispute. We find that the Organization has, in fact met the three tests set forth by Referee Benn. The Board concurs with the Board's finding in Third Division Award 37345 that Third Division Award 37227, which followed the reasoning set forth in Public Law Board No. 5782, Awards 1 through 5, is dispositive in this and similar cases. Moreover, we see no reason to diverge from the pattern established in those Awards, i.e., unless the Organization can show that the time spent at the disputed task was other than de minimus - which it has not in this case - the established remedy is $15.00 per incident.
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.