C:\AWARDS\OUT\SBA122-1.htm

e c
0 SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NO. 122 P

Y THE PITTSBURGH AND LAKE ERIE RAILROAD COMPANY

THE LAKE ERIE AND EASTERN RAILROAD COMPANY

vs

BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY AND STEAMSHIP CLERKS,

FREIGHT HANDLERS, EMPRESS AND STATION EMPLOYES

Award No. 1. Case No. 2 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claims of Clerks Evelyn M. Curcio and Jane Kreuter as listed below, account of Agent W. S. Coleman at-Newell Scales, an employe not within the scope of our agreement, performing clerical contract work on the dates claimed, in violation of Rule 1(d) of the Clerks' Agreement. (CL-125) Jane Kreuter - February 14, 15,'19; 20, 21i 22, 26, 27, 28, 29, 1952

March 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 71,-12,'13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22; 24, 25i 26; 27; 28, 29, 1952

April 14; 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, '29, 30, 1952 '

May 1, 2, 3, 5, 6,'7, 8, 9, 10; 12, 13's 14, 15, 16, 17,

19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 1952

Evelyn Curcio - January 2, 3, 40 5, 9,'10, 11, 12, 16, 17, to^, 19, 23, 24, 25, 26, 30, 31, 1952

February 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16, 20, 21, 22, 23, 27, 28, 29, 1952 '

March 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 19, 20, 21, 22, 26, 27, 28; 29, 1952 ' April 16i 17, 18), 19, 23, 24, 25, 26, 30, 1952 May 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 0~, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 1952 FOINGS: The Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that: The Carrier or Carriers and the employee or employees involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934. The Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein. The parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon. The evidence reveals that although some of the work performed by Agent 11. S. Coleman at Newell Scales is clerical in nature, the fact remains that it is incidental to and an integral part of the Scale Agentrs job content and has been so recognized throughout the 15 year span, during which he has engaged in such performance, without protest or dispute by the organization. Award No. 1 Case No. 2 In that the time limit rule was not previously sought to be enforced in the long, drawn out processin; of these claims through the various preliminary steps of the Appeal Procedure, and considering that the General hfanagerys denial of April 3, 1953, almost 7 months following conference, was accepted as an effective disallowance, and that at subsequent discussions of the matter on March 2, 1955, and September 8, 1955, the case was still held open for decision by the highest Carrier Officer designated to these Appeals, it is fair to conclude that the parties hereto waived the time limits specified in Rule 43, effective January 1, 1955, with respect to the instant claim. AWARD: Claims denied. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania April 25, 1957 SPECIAL HOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ?J0. 122 /s/ Harold M. Giiden Harold TI. Gilden, Neutral and Only Member thereof.