SPECIAL BOARD OF
lVITUiSTt1ENT
NO. 605
PARTIES ) Erie Lackwwanna Rai1·_ray Company
TO THE
) and
DISPUTE ) Transportation-Cc;nnunication Employees Union
QUESTIONS
AT ISSUE: 1. Is Carrier permitted to abolish a position,
or more than one position prior to the time
it has a corresponding attrition credit, or
credits, as contemplated in Article I, Sec
tion 5?
.2. Did Carrier violate Article III, Section 1
when it transferred work formerly performed
by the Agent-Operator at Carlton Hill, New
Jersey, to employees not covered by the
Telegraphers' Agreement?
3. Did Carrier violate the Agreement when, without first following the procedure set forth
in Article III, Sections 1 and 2 or 3, it
declared the position of Agent-operator at
Carlton Hill, New Jersey abolished, and
required the Agent-Operator at Rutherford,
New Jersey to travel to the station at Carlton Hill and perform work formerly performed
by the occupant of the position declared to
be abolished?
OPINION
OF BOARD: The Organization members of the Disputes Committee withdrew the first two questions and the Award therefore is
limited to the third question.
The answer to that question is found by applying the
Interpretation of Article III as it was adopted by the parties
on November 24, 1965. Page 10 of the interpretations provides
t i
t..;tu'2D No.
Case No. TCU-')_-']
are reaui^?d either
;4hen tii
under sae
agree;.:~nt i:: effect prior to iebruary 7,
jai uizou-c coi:_ erence and agreement with
representatives of the Organizations.
Len i-nplementing agreement is therefore not required
if Carrier was not obliged to confer with and reach agreement
with the organization prior to effectuating the proposed change.
The Organization has cited an early Award of the Third Division
on this property; No. 5384, in support of its position. However,
more significant is the determination of Public Law Board No.
167 in Award No. tlsv=aich considered the application of the schedule agreement to the precise question that has been submitted to
t:W s Committee: the propriety of abolishing the position at
Carlton Hill, New
Jersey
and having tae Agent-Operator at Rutherford, New Jersey perform whatever work was to be done.
In denying the claim the Board held, in part, on
August 15, 1968, as follows:
Despite the divergent statements, the thrust
of the Organization's contentions is predicated upon the premise that if any work
remained at Canton Hill which was being
performed by the organization's Rutherford
Ticket Agent-Operator, a dualization agreement was required. ,
Our Board has carefully considered this
aspect. Unquestionably a dualization agreement would have obviated t-ais dispute. However, while we would suggest and urge such,
7
\",D No
Case No. TCL-Z-::
r;e do of i-~lieve roe have tine To-,.:or to
~:~:ec; u:1~:-~,rti:~s to no<;a-'.:i.zlte one under
LCes nrovalenc nerein.
`i.-<=t 'L~.:., cc:d:~ic~c::,d T.lird i:,11 _sion :'riard 5;,:-, a=
_.._ ,... c:'-,.u..:... _ r·~-~a :._....
c.1'-
sc"=ciul% ztIi-rce;aent 6ic
reau_:-e prior. actreemrnt wi'Lii the Organization. The issue was
... ._ ,..,_
~C.~..__
~...:
.~..,.._..__-.
...:Si',., :n -Ci._1~3~.1'. CO
1nzor
In,:et and apply t:I7e scaodiule agreeiitent, and the Board 's conclusion
Certainlv was nol unrea^onaJ31e. in liG-It of tile ruling o,' P. i,.
Boa rd 1.67, anC3 rt'.r--,Uiint 'Lo Pa·'(". In of tl:e Interoretations, can
1.m`.)1C.~=nting a^reemcai't 4.%as rcl.= necessary. Thereore, Articlc ICI
wa.`., not violated
t.~x'
Carr ier
`s
action.
A W A R D
The answer to Question No. 3 is No.
Milton Friedman
Neutral Member
Dated: July
a~,
1971
Washington, D. C.
-3-