i3ROTHERi?00D OF RinIL'4AY. AIRLINE AND STEAMSHIP
CLERKS
1
EXPRE.`.i:~ AND STATION E::`iPLOYE~:S
.f
l 10
~O,
-and- `,~
,,1~ `,r~
~.-~
SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY
~``7
(TEXAS AND LauISIAN.a LINES)
~`~
a-~'.=--
STAT:."LNT CF CLAIM
:
'06
Claim of they System Committee of the Brotherhood, that:
1. The Carrier violated Section 6(a) of Article II of
the Agreement of April 20! 1`366, when, com«encinq June 30, 1968,
it failed to pro;-.erlv con, -ensate Clerk R. S. Dr«ker "a c)rotected
emr:love" under the terms of said aqreement at the normal rate of
compensation of the position held by him on April 20, 1966, plus
subsequent general wage adjustments.
2. The Carrier now be recuired to
compensate Clerk R. S.
Draker by the addition of $0.9536 per dav_
to
his protected rate
of compensation effective June 30, 1°66( and in addition to this
new protected rate
apply
other general wage ciian(jes effective July
1, 1968, and subsequent general wage chLnges fo,r eactl and every
work day until the violation is corrected.
OPINTIO?d OF BOARD:
In
September 1, 1966
Claimant
Draker--a "arotected. employee" as
de
fined in Article III Section 1 of the April 20 , 1966 Agreement--was dis
placed from his Cashier position at San Antonio Freight Station by a senior
clerk whose position had been abolished. Claimant complied with Section 8
and 9 of Article II
in making displacement and was allowed his "normal rate
of comtDensation" of $24.9824 per day (rate of the Cashier position he form
erly occupied) for service subsequently performed on his new Assistant Rate
ClerV position which carried the
lower rr_te of 523.9924 aver day.
in addition to e-tabli shiny the rate of the position to which assigned
on a certain date a;; the protected emi)loyee's "norm,il rate of compensation,"
::(=ctior, c,C,-,) of Article II pcovides this( "such compec:sation
shrill
:b_=
ad;Lyste
t.E~111G.i'.t~.·.· _;11::.~iE~f~l~tj:'it. C.~Cnt.'r.1~w.i'jE'
C~li:il;:f'.`':.
~~Iii accordance with
tt'iiS
re-
r:uir
t'tift't~t I
C1.-i i rl ?:tf:
!~rL9
:c'r'
:"Sio
include
(,,_-neral4
tJ..;Ct_
<'3djustmeriL5
effectiv(- oil J'l::Lrary 1, 196?, J,
rm<11
r
C7
f
Olu
.try
Lind July i, 1961) re:Pectively.
The urqania~3ttion
contends
that in addition to
wage A`,ustments detailed above, claimant's normal
should hc:ve included the
arttount added to the rate o
position on June 30, 1968 resin ting
Fund" establish~::d by
dated December
28,
if·67. The Carrier
tribution was not a
"general w iqe
cha
cl aialar
,-?ref
ore
cite?
of C<71tt:-f!ti:;·3tlOt1" waS i1djL1:'.Ct=d to
3
I,nd
3"" Which becam'.
19t)8,, J.'-;-:u,ar
Yy
1,
tne subsequent general.
his former
Cashier
from distribution of the
"Classificatic
Article IV of tt-.e National
Agreement
reaaands that the
subject fund
dis-
~nge" and t::us there wigs no requirement
to add they recruested amount
to
r.tls
",normal
rate of comi)ensation."
The
confronting
question is t~: whether tie distribution
of the fund
L'eorL'S<'_iltt?d
Ts
C7er3eru:i wage
Ct'Ic3rtge
within the meaninq Gf hrtlC]r?
Its
Section
6( a) of ti-,e
Aryl
20, 1966 n.grEtetr,ent.
The terns and
conditions
for
distributing
the
subject
fund are set
:or_t't~ in the National
Agreerler:_
dated April 2, 1968. Section 1, Item 1
thereof decl -res
in pertinent :)art that tt,e
fund
is "to lie allocated as
r* _
wage adjustments among
selected positions
carrying rates of pay that are
found to reed reevauatiGn and upward adjustments by reason of skills or
special job requirements ....
Lines based on
in
tram:d other
criteria. Item 3
provides that i
Item
2 sets forth fund
distribution
guide-
-carrier, inter-carr=.er
and
inter-industry inerui,
tie_-,
f
fi
local agreement is not
reach
on r. par ocular r --i lr oad by ,7u;.e 1 , 1968
regardina distribution of the fund
as ;_rovf.dad in Item
c,
the fund "shall
hr~
distributod effective-
June 30, 1°E
can that railroad to .311 emnlGy<·cs
covered
by t)-,e r:ay t rovisions of the 8R,%C
Aqre-mf>:It: ;lt;ft
wu0 ,rx ·a in the `.:~;: 62 to
r~
entire c;ro:;p of crrployec·s coml:;.I under
z .,. 'i'tr2G'rc~,.: On t1c= t
t)i
1U1'1.7.r.~_~ ~_~,i.` _. . . ~" It
/',--.of
thf-
rzit<_ strucviiro of
the
the ;:>.;y' e -;ions
of
"it
;t ttl,-t!_ t_tli.^,
f~l j
c;ii,i
group shall be
divi(ied .into five
equal parts according to the level
or
r«te_°
of the rerpectivf· poLitionsr
and
that specified declining percentages (30,~,
25%, 20`'~f 1S'~. ~~.nd
10R:) of the fund will be used to adjust the rates of "po: i
,ion-' in each sub-group (starting with the highest salar
led .yuu-grouk~ in
equal amounts within each of the : ub-groups.
Since the
subject
parties failed to reach agreement by June lg 1:'68 on
distribution of the fund in accordance with the guidr-il ines contained in item
2 of the April 2, 1968 National Agreement, on June 24, 1963 they entered
:.kit
a Memorandum of Agreement on arrangements for distributing
the fund in
accordance with Item 3 of the April 2, 1968 Agreement. This
?.1iernorandun
called for wage increases of varying amounts (as determined by the Item 3
formula) to be applied to approximately 641;;
(i.e., 931) of the 1454 "job:,
worked
January 3, 1968." As a result of
this fund distribution,,
the rate fc
the Cashier position from which Claimant Draker had been displaced on Septe"'I
ber
It 1966 was increased by 0.9536 per
day, and
the rate of the
Assistant
Rate Clerk
position occupied by claimant was increased by $0.?904 per day.
Sincel the
Carrier decliriLd
to add the b0.9j' 36 to claimant ' s "normal rate of
compensation,"
and since the
protected rate tie was receiving exceeded the
rate
for
his Assistant Rate Clerk position by
more titan 50.7904 per day, he
did not receive any monetary benefit from the
.fund distribution.
We are unable to regard distribution of the fund as a general, wage chan
As previously noted, the April 2. 1968 rational Agreement (Item 1) provided
that the fund was "to be allocated as wage adjustments among selected positions carrying
rates of pay that are found to
need reevaluation
and upward
adjustments..." The fund distribution guidelines set forth in Item 2 perranted more flexibility of application
than the Item 3 formula but the two
sections wr·_re intended to constitute c:Iternate procedures for attz.;ining the
objective set forth in ltei~.i 1. -Vhc Item 3 formula clearly was designed to
- 3_
ccrrt`ct:
~~r;itt.
t:lze
:ICC~t,tlritort~
cjt
~ilfApril
2!
19t~ij
N<<tioritll Ac?ree-Tlellt
7-t2-~~iIC~E'.t~ Q1S ti t~1111 C.C::1::7-r'S`;f~d ',.,~,iuc
structure. It w:~ for thi:y
LE=~t::C~tl
:.Tli~
di:>tri.t~uciDii of the ;und ~r~s
liR1itcd
to :jct.>itio:.s
held by
em-lohee:, in tho
',.o:, ;:~vo--thirds
of the rate
strut tune of t;:e entire qroup of em:;lovees in
tl1-
bargaininc, unit, wits:
tile
ctmou7:t of wege increase to be greater for the
tlical;er. nu:)--groups of positions.
With
one-third of
the positions (and t,'-:erefore e7nployees) excluded
frot
the distribution of t4lle fund!
it would be illogical to hold thin this di=tr
bu tion
constituted a c;enerl-:l wage change, -~:hic:~ is
normally
considered to bi
a chonge affecting all the employees or positions in
the bargaining unit.
Mor, cover, the proportion of positions (arid tliereforc employees) excluded
from the
fund distribution was simply too
large to 1,e considered a minor
exception to an
otherv.-ise
general wage ct:;ir:ge.
For the foregoirzq reasons the
claim is Without merit and will be denies
A Hi A R D
Claim, denied.
r, ~'~
oyd H. ':jai ler,, Nt:~uzrai member
" and Chairman
L~uv~ . ::. 1
~,i;or7~
Zmoyee Member R. W. hd~Ims! Carrier Membt=r
~~Z~,,,. %~'~:~:~.:~-mss,
Dated: July
51
19 '0