SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NO. 605
PARTIES ) Soo Line Railroad
TO THE ) and
DISPUTE ) TC Division - BRAC
QUESTIONS
AT ISSUE: (1) Did Carrier violate the Agreement when
it failed since June 1, 1969, to com
pensate A. 0. Krubsack at his protected
rate of pay, while working on the position
of Agent-Operator, Junction City, Wisconsin?
(2) If the answer to the above question is in
the affirmative, shall carrier be required
to compensate Claimant at his protected
rate since June 1, 1969?
OPINION
OF BOARD: In 1942 and 1946 the wage rate of the operators at
Junction City, Wisconsin was twice increased, first
by 3C and then by 5P, to compensate incumbents for
handling remotely controlled switches. In 1969, the installation
of CTC eliminated the need for that function. The job rate was
thereupon reduced 8t.
Claimant, Agent-Operator at Junction City in 1969,
was a protected employee. Carrier argues that his protected
rate nevertheless could be reduced by eliminating the 8~, since
these "additives were in the nature of an allowance payable under
specific conditions only and, therefore, not part of 'the normal
rate of compensation.'" Also, it was said, even if it were held
that he is protected at his October 1, 1964, rate, Claimant was
obliged to place himself on a higher-paying position available
to him, once the rate for the Junction City job itself was reduced.
The rate for every job generally is predicated upon
the value of the components which constitute it. Whatever these
were in 1964 is the rate which Claimant was guaranteed. For at
A~JARD No.3(77
Case No. TC-BRAC-113-w
that time the rate he received was his "normal rate of compensation." Thus, although the job rate might be reduced in 1969,
the individual's protected rate remained unchanged, provided he
met the requirements of other provisions of the February 7 Agreement.
However, Rule 6(a) of the schedule agreement states:
In the event of a regularly assigned position being abolished or re-classified, the
incumbent thereof may displace any regularly
assigned telegrapher as provided in paragraph (i) of this rule, provided seniority
and ability are sufficient and application
is filed within fifteen days.
When the job rate was reduced, Claimant could have
displaced a junior employee only 15 miles distant at an even
higher rate -than he had been receiving previously. According
to Carrier, if it should be .found that the incumbent was
entitled to his protected rate, he was obligated nevertheless
to exercise his senior_!rty to secure the higher-paying position
in accordance with Article IV, Section 4. For he then was r/
actually earning less than his guarantee.
According to the organization, the job was not reclassified; the title remained what it had been: Agent-Operator.
Adding or deleting a minor duty would not constitute "reclassification," in the Union's estimation.
The Company's right to change the job rate was not
challenged on the property. If Carrier had been unjustified in
its action, the Organization could have raised the issue in the
proper forum. Not having done so, it must be assumed that the
organization acquiesced in the action.
Although the title of the job was not changed, the
job, in effect, was reclassified. Its content was cha.ged with
the elimination of the duty involving remote-controller'. switches,
and a corresponding reduction was made in the wage rate to compensate for it. Title changes do not necessarily accompany
-2-
AWARD
No.
3 o 7
Case No. TC-BRAC-113-W
reclassifications, and what occurred in this case was a substantial alteration in the job's former classification and wage
level.
If the incumbent had not been a protected employee,
his wages would have been reduced coincident with the change in
job rate. Under the rule, any employee whose job is thus reclassified then would be eligible to exercise his seniority to displace elsewhere. A protected employee who is receiving less
than his protected rate consequently is required under Article
1V, Section 4, to exercise these displacement rights if he can
obtain a higher-paying position. Claimant's failure to do so
meant that he was thereafter to "be treated for the purposes
of this Article as occupying the position which he elects to
decline."
To hold otherwise would enable an employee to avoid
his obligations under Article 1V, Section 4, although propriety
of the reduction in job rate went unchallenged. For, when the
rate was reduced, Claimant was as obliged to act under this
provision as he would have been if his job had been abolished.
Rule o(a), read in conjunction with Article IV, Section 4, makes
it evident that Claimant could not retain his protected rate,
having failed to obtain the higher-paying position which was
available without a. residence change.
A
W
A R
D
The Answer to Question No. 1 is No.
l c
cl t <
Milt Friedman
Neutral Member
Dated:
July.16,
1972
Washington, D. C.