SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NO. 605
PARTIES ) MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY
TO THE ) and
DISPUTE ) TRANSPORTATION-CORMUNICATION 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,
Section 5?
2. Is Carrier permitted to abolish a position
covered by the Telegraphers' Agreement, and
combine the work thereof with another posi
tion covered by the same Agreement, at another
location, without first following the proce
dure set forth in Article III, Sections 1
and 2 or 3?
OPINION
OF BOARD: The Organization has withdrawn the first question.
The issue in this case is whether Carrier is required
to obtain implementing agreements in order to effect certain
dualized positions. According to Item 1(b) on Page 10 of the
Interpretations, implementing agreements are required if the
change "wo,ild not have been permissible without conference and
agreement."
The only evidence on the point cited by the Organization is that in 1960 Carrier and the Organization entered into
an agreement to dualize some two-dozen stations, fixing the rates
of pay and other conditions. The Organization therefore contends
that "Carrier fully recognizes the necessity of an implementing
agreement in such instances."
However, since 1960 Carrier has dualized about 140
stations and only the first group in 1960 was by agreement with
AWARD NO. z ~~
Case No. TCU-67-W
the Organization. Efforts to obtain agreement on the subsequent dualizations were fruitless but they were effectuated
nevertheless because, it was said, "Carrier did not need the
concurrence of the Telegraphers' Organization to effect these
dualizations."
As a result of Carrier's position, the Organization
contended before the Third Division that Carrier was violating
the rules agreement. In Award 15601, dated May 31, 1967, the
Organization's claim was denied on the ground that "Petitioner
failed to cite any Rule which supports its position." Other
Third Division Awards on this property had similarly held that
Carrier's unilateral action in dualization did not violate the
rules agreement.
The organization also relies upon Award No. 220 of
this Committee wherein it was held that combining work could
constitute an organizational and operational change. The
instant cases are readily distinguishable, since they do not
involve such changes. They involve the abolition of positions
due to a decline in business, and the consequent requirement
that the remaining employees travel to the site of the abolished
positions in order to perform the remaining work.
Because stations are closed due to a decline in business
and a nearby Agent performs part-time work there, there is no
organizational or operational change within the purview of
Award No. 220. Award No. 248 is applicable to this situation.
A W A R D
1. Question No. 1 has been withdrawn.
2. The answer to Question No. 2 is Yes.
PITton Irieaman
Neutral Member
Dated: Washington, D. C.
March
J17
, 1972