PUBLIC LAW BOARD N0.


PARTIE A Brotherhood of R~ILlwAy, AlrllnC? e,nd `;te.;m<:hlF;
 TO_ DISPUTE Clerk_ Freight H,:anrller~, f=;:prcz-=s and Station
 Employres
 and

STAT EMENT "1. Carrier violated the Agreement when it
 OF CLAIM allowed an outside firm/sshlpper, Union
 Camp Corporation, to perform demurrage
 and car placement information for
 car=_ placed and released for the Seaboard
 System Railroad At Montgomery, Alabama. .
 . Carrier =shall compensate the senior
 empl,_yee ·e::tra in preference In the amount
 of ~1.vC.'C, ntllity rate of pay, from
 Octobl*r LC. 1'705 and cn ,: duel l y basis
 until violation is corrected.

 FINDINGS:
Upon the whole record, after hearing, the &oard

 parties herein ;re Carrier and Employee within the inFaanlnq of

 F;ailw~y Labor Act. As :mended. .-.nd that this Hoard is duiv

 constltUted under Publ-c Law 09-·l3b And has= jurt.=?lctlr~n car the?

 the

 partl~_s and th_ ·_Ub·F:ct matter.

 In the summer of 1?8.' Carr;er, i r, tent

 Con t r.a 1

 l=::1 f F: i 1 ro,:J

 to purchase li:i mile= c-.f tracl::,aqe

 _.:t, ?rW ll.ng from

 AuqUS ta Creel'. On tfils sire r_ch C·:,mp Corporation's pang-;' mil i

 _, r:1CpF_·r5.~_llbSE:nl.lEen i:l ·.

 notified its

 rtdhf.s

 Mon'. %aamr?rw.

 tr8r_1· i.ua=


v:.lal:?io:,, l:.r) irjcah.r~d l_r:.tcn


~:VIF?nt: ryth.nr
 ";7', 7arrtFr

 advised the orqanl::atm:)n how r;vF_ ciF_rtc11 m.'~r4 bc;r':u p rformcd

the ICG emp1ovee=== would he performed Lf the _:ale was consuin.ated. Several months later, on February 24. 1994, the parties e,;ecuted an Implementing Agreement in accordance with the Labor Protective Conditions provided for by the "Plow Yo rt Dock" conditions (Article I. Section 4). Ce.rrier's November letter indicated a listing of ICS positions and the dude=_ its employees .would

perform when the sale was completed. C.;rrier then on October 9, 1985 started operations at Union Camp and some three weeds later (an October ==, 1985) the Petitioner became aware of certain actions which it considered to be violations of the Agreement:


Accord-,nq to Petitioner,-irrier, had entered into :;n Aqreemr,.nt
 with Union Camp to change the method for hand li.nq demurrane
 reports. Prior to the acqutsition of the lien-miIe =.ecdon of
 track, ICS demo--rrraqe clerks had utilized a form furnished by hhe
 conductor to maintain a record of cars pullo?d from and placed
 at.rato Union Camp. ~"-it the end of rich month, +he dert~urr,1ne r_1,7=rt
 would use these records for purposes of pro-pa rtr,a a demurr,:qs
 bill for any monies dire. Startinn on October 9, 1°95, Carrier s
 demurrage clerk was notified not to m.aint.;in - demi..~rr.aoe reccrd
 but to use Ln;.on Cv,Inp Company' dram:rrt-ane -r?pc, rt generated b,

 '=omr.Uter For purposes; o f billing ."r-~d .a l l

 Pei-itioner insists that

 eth.-r purpos:'=_.

 the .;ration-. c.,r_1 ;sr-t.m:tti=s involved m
 the maintaining of records for demurrage purposes is work coming

 under the Scope Rttle and cannot be removed encept Previously Carrier, by its letter of November

 advised the organization that the demurrage work

 G`; agreement.
 4. 198._. had

 in question

would be performed by a chief rate clerlr, cashier, and twn ether clerks. Furthermore the work: In question had been performed previously b·/ ICG clerical employees and never by Union Camp employees. The Organization insists that Carrier had no right to contract out unilaterally the work in question to Union Camp and the work should have been reserved to emplovees covered 0,, the r;qreement as provided by the Implementing Agreement.


Carrier takes the position initlall`; that th,F claim wa=_
 Pr-ncedur.ally defective and -hot.tl.d be. di-~-_mln-a.;. Carrier notas
 that the claim was tiled on December ln. 1`?83, whr=rw_= the action
 .f changing the method for Y',andllnn r1e,nurrm.7g was !.n.=. instituted Kv
 r:arrier u,v October a, 1'p8''. Thus, there who <,('F: n.,mr~-W :.i·,,, .r
 61-day yap betv·reer the occurranc== and l:.`^s:· v,.linq which w-.·.s I:*·.ond

 rha on dais provided for in F:ulc -,_. The Carrier
i:!",_.4 the action involved Was parn;c,.t:-:r- act and nut
 u:7r,tlrl,1.·-,C) claim n5 alleged by the 11r.^_pr,l.'.a+lorn. in :iddlLlOri
 the prC·CHdUral question. Carrier 1a'sl'.:rs that there wal

 evidence to support Frtitloner' s claim t_hr,t i;arrtt·r viol ,tod
 ,:_-;rer_,men t. The only dtff-ra:nce in Lt,- operation. :.CCmr,!irW

 ,rque=_ further

 t-p

 i, 0

 the

 r ·-)

L..,r-r-ter-. was tlnr? t,:,ct that I:hr- dernurr~)iac: =_Lrrr4· is r~«rrentl·; rUt=.:tr.c7 the Computerized lis-t.inq to qenr·ratc a drmurraqe bill for ~lni,.,n Camp rather than ustnq the conductor '~_, p Laced and pulled r~?corrlss. Therefore. it is the Computerized li.--tinq prepared b`: Union Cankp which is the only, major chanae.


In furtherance of its position. Carrier al-o araues that the wort

 of maintaininra demurr,sae records fr.''-

lonaer required by i-arrier and Carrier argues that the work of from Lhe conductor's report of c:ar


in order- to qeneratr7· a d.:~murraqe h that the work: has been slimiated and not C:mp.


.i lip ton Camn Corporation is no

teas properly been elimtn,.,te,d.

compilino the ir_·rnurraqe record

I~andltnq is rm lonr,er rrq·_m^ed


(',:crier' = post l.~ on t=

 t.r"r-~sf~-rred to Lin on

 The essence

 been
 with

 re-:pee t to

 Petitioner had s, right to determine wheat the fact-=

handlmq of demt.trraae brefore ftlirnr7 Lt'- clamp. nc·t refr.rle it's ~;sserti.on t:ha'.. ^uch irwfcrmat_j.or


to tt 1 mtil October- __. "nd therefore tine clat the prescribed period.

 of this dispute i=_ whether the wcrt· ire qi..re=_ticn h~.=_

 removed or eliminated. It Should I-se noted, prior to dealtnc7

 that question , however,

 the 1-in tllnr?I1'ir?-S
that I=..,rr1e_v
 ,; t-. he n L rmr,

 m

 ·vor, te·) tlr,n wI th

 1'S r·W . thr7uW finer t l- .

 were a=- to the

The evidence coca

was not ;.·ailaLle


was fl.leul within
 "Lth rr=sprct to the r11ndamanu,al . .auf-. It Lc amparvnt `ram cl-:r:'

 facts raven as rrnlated u·; CarriQr that the wore:

 not eliminated mt r,atncr removed from the jurisdiction W

 ompLosee=_ of Carr:u.. SUCI1 aCtLon w-AA,, a clear violation Or the ! etter and intent o r the New York Duck conditions a,-s

 those in the Implementinn Ilnrremen1..

 ork wCek OwndLtiunls h, hurrr'er· .

 she work .Trom the iurrsdlnti": o1- Um cluracal nmoluirtn'= __. SUffLClont to move thla Board W '_Ltl_Sr1.r: the :Lalm. Until OnO "Wass, there 15 ·.'iormi-moat with ro=:[!eat In r'1 lwin"1 a"f: Ui ~h': work. the umplo~eo_ cr-. yrxd b,, thi_ Auraymen, have ..; ri,il-:t.-n hhr. fork.

 m uue'- i.un w._,

 rho ~Grooat'.iurr of

 unit UWrOl :;r_1-.1.:'n

 ' '?Ln L i'_

 1he flew

 in r-OMOVIMQ

 work~ 'llvi . I ve . an., "u:" r o !I L
 from the lima i!w' wiml . ,n- -1,.1

 jurindictLon tuctsber L.. u:;j1W unn,

 wr nLn Fr Lr±i u_,. : ur r4r-· 1.1:1:

ht. I_mbr_rman

·ut:ra I _..Ch.., rm-o,


r·LF.
Z 1
L. E. Hosherr Employee Member r-
rLlt~, Florid,