As Third Party in Interest, the United Transportation Union - Yardmasters Department (UTU) was advised of the pendency of this dispute and chose to file a Submission with the Board.
Aside from the Labor and Carrier representatives from the Board, also present at the Referee Hearing in this matter were representatives of the Organization, the Carrier and the UTU. As a result, extensive presentations by the Organization, the Carrier and the UTU were made to the Board.
In these claims, the Organization alleges that the Carrier assigned Yardmasters at Louisville, Kentucky, to issue work orders on trains rather than assigning that work to a Customer Service Representative ("CSR") at the Customer Service Center ("CSC") in Jacksonville, Florida. The record reveals that the specific computer function involved for issuing the disputed work orders is WOIS.
The background for this claim is set forth in Third Division Awards 37227 and 37760.
As more fully set forth in Third Division Award 37760, the Board has jurisdiction to resolve this claim.
The record in this case shows that the disputed work: (1) was performed by someone other than a CSR at the CSC; (2) was performed by a Clerk at Louisville, Kentucky, prior to the 1991 Implementing Agreement; and (3) was performed by a CSR at the CSC after the 1991 Implementing Agreement took effect. Under the three-part test set forth in Third Division Award 37227, the Organization has shown that the work was transferred from Louisville to the CSC under the terms of the 1991 Implementing Agreement and was later improperly performed by someone other than a CSR at the CSC in violation of the parties' Collective Bargaining Agreements.
The Organization presented four statements from Clerks who worked at Louisville and were transferred to the CSC. Those statements show that WOIS was performed by Clerks at Louisville and, after their transfer to the CSC, was performed by them at the CSC. Notwithstanding citation to other authority concerning the Yardmasters' performance of work, under the three-part test utilized in these cases, the Organization met its burden in this case. Form 1 Award No. 37839
For reasons stated in Third Division Award 37760, arguments made by the UTU do not change the result.
Under the rationale stated in Third Division Award 37227, these claims 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.
These Awards involve the performance of various computer functions, including. adjusting yard inventory, at field locations by Clerks and/or Yardmasters:
Awards 37836 and 37837 denied the claims presented therein. The claims that culminated .in Awards 37838, 37839 and 37840 were sustained in accordance with the Findings. Although two of the five Awards decided the involved claims in favor of the Carrier, we nevertheless.dissent on the ground that the Board lacks the subject matter jurisdiction to decide any of these claims. For the sake of brevity, our Dissent to Third Division Awards 37760 through 37765 is incorporated herein by reference.