PUBLIC LAW BOARD N0. 6290
Case No. 21 Award No. 21
PARTIES Transportation Communications International Union
tc and
DISPUTE: CSX Transportation, Inc.
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
(a) On June 1, 1985 the Carrier violated Rule I of
the Clerks' General Agreement and continues to
do so when it transferred work and duties associated with the Stores Department's purchases and
related functions to an outside vendor, mechanical
and transportation
personnel, as
well as to noncontract officers of both departments.
(b) Carrier further violated Rule 23 of the Clerk's
Agreement when on June 1, 1985 it transferred the
duty of ordering, loading and unloading, warehousing
and distribution of materials for the Transportation
Department from clerical employes in the Stores Department to employes located in the Transportation
Department and non-contract employes of private
vendors without proper notice to the General Chairman.
(c) The Carrier shall compensate Stores Department
Clerks A. L. Adkins, Leonard Earwood and William
Tue11 one (1) hours' pay each at the pro rate of
their respective positions for each workday beginning June 1, 1985 and continuing until such time as
the work is properly returned.
(d) In addition, Carrier shall compensate the below
listed employe whose position was abolished as a
direct result of the aforementioned transfer of
work eight (8) hours pay at the pro rata of their
former position beginning on the date such positions
were abolished and each work day thereafter until
this violation ceases and the position is restored.
This
compensation will
be in addition to other compensation of earnings the Claimant may receive
during the period of claim.
FINDINGS: This claim arose because, on May 21, 1985, the Manager of
the Carrier's West Virginia Division issued a directive which required
the direct purchase of all materials from vendors. The vendors then
2LB No. 6290 C-21/A-21
Page 2
would ship the ordered materials directly to the location. from which
the order had originated. Before this directive was issued when a
transaction was not made directly with a vendor, the requisition for
supplies was forwarded to the Carrier's Store Department, which then
ordered the supplies.
The Organi?ation's rC)cal Char_,an `ileu a claim on July 19, 1985
asserting that the Carrier had violated Rules 1 and 23 of the Parties'
Agreement.
On September 18, 1985, the Carrier denied the claim. The denial
letter, in relevant part, read as follows:
In reference to your letter dated July 19, 1985,
your file No. 504-586.
Please be advised that the direct _nurchase of
materials or supplies by the using department
from a supplier is not a violation of Rule 1 or
Rule 23 of the Clerks' General Agreement. Using
departments lave made direct purchases from vendors
for many years, and this has never been an exclusive
function of clerical employees in the Stores Department or any other department. Likewise, vendors have
for many years delivered material to offices and departments within a building. When purchases are made
by the using department directly from a vendor, this
eliminates the intermediate step of handling by the
Stores Department.
There is no violation of the Clerks' General Agreement
or any other Agreement; therefore, your claim is declined.
This claim then dragged on for some fifteen (15) years. Presently,
thig unusually long delay has resulted in sevezdl procedural contentions
by both parties over and above the merits of the claim itself.
Numerous Awards have held that, when material statements are made
by one party and not denied by the other party; the contentions stand
unrebutted. The material statements then are entitled to be and are
accepted as established fact. This is particularly true, when there
is both time and opportunity to deny claims and counter-claims, as is
the case here.
PLB No. 6290 C-21/A-21
Page 3
The Local Chiarman and the General Chairman, in the appeal of
November 1, 1985, never refuted the substance of the Carrier's denial,
as quoted above. The remainder of on-the-nrooertv reoord added
nothing to refute the reasons for the Carrier's denial. Therefore,
the Carrier's basis for the denial stands as a material fact and
unrefuted and, accordingly, the Board must deny this claim.
AWARD
The claim is denied.
Carl H. Brockett
r
ke and
MuP83 g
79;'m-Oi:~Rzak
organization Member Neutral b^.e Cr
Dated: