A

P

Y SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTIRii,NT NO. 167

AWARD N0. 7

Organization's File Carrieros File

101-C-16 (a) CL-33-55

STATERENT OF CLA111:

AClaim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

57(1) The Carrier violated rules of the current Agreement with the Brotherhood of Railway Clerks when effective July 1, 1955, it consolidated Roster No. 3, Office of Auditor of Passenger Accounting, and Roster No. 4, Office of Auditor of Car Service Accounting, without agreement and over the protest of the Brotherhood.

R(2) Mr. I. D. Fredericks shall be compensated for the difference in rate of pay between that of Chief Clerk, $17.05 per day, and that of his present position, $15.45 per day.

'P(3) Mable A. Estabrook, an employe holding seniority on Roster No. 3, shall be compensated for an additional day's pay at rate of $15.46 per day for every day this violation continues account illegally displaced from her position by J. J. Sweeney, an employe holding seniority on Roster No. 4.

"(4) Lydia H. Hayes shall be compensated for the difference in rate of pay between x15.11 per day and 314.97 per day.

·~(5) H. H. Valentine, an employe holdin.- seniority on Roster No. 4, shall be compensated for an additional day?s pay at rate of $14.97 per day for every day this violation continues account illegally displaced from his position by Lydia H. Hayes, an employe . holding seniority on Roster No. 3.

·i(6) Kathleen B. Crawford shall be compensated for the difference in rate of pay between ,x14.3$ per day and ;j14.01 per day.

'°(7) Ruth L. Waldeck, an employe holding seniority on Roster No. 3, chall be compensated for an additional dayqs pay at the rate of 414.56 per day for every day this violation continues account illegally displaced from her position by Dorothy R. Grant, an employe holding seniority on Roster No. 4.

ip(3) R. E. Lapsley shall be compensated for the difference in rate of pay between $14.13 per day and $13.35 per day.

T-T. B. Walters shall be compensated for the difference in rate of pay between w13.35 per day and $11.66 per day for the period July 12, 1955, to and including July 22, 1955, when he moved into another department.

.a

Award No. 7

2(10) G. T. Willingham shall be compensated for an additional one and one-half hourqs pay at the rate of x13.35 per day account required to suspend work on his re3ular assignment on Roster No. 4 to open and distribute mail for Passenger Accounting Department, work previously performed by employes on Roster No. 3.

0(11) Senior employs on Roster No. 3 be compensated for one and one-half hourts pay each day until violation listed in (10) above is corrected.

t~(12) That any and all employes who have or who may in the future suffer any adverse effect as a result of CarrierQS action, even though not above specified, shall be compensated for all losses suffered, amount to be determined by joint check of payrolls and assignments.;'

FINDINGS: This claim challenges Carrierfs right to consolidate Seniority Districts without negotiation and agreement.

Rule 5 on which employes rely comes within Article III of the Agreement, which is entitled stSeniorityd and has to do with seniority rights.

Rule 5 provides that seniority rights will apply and rosters will be maintained separately as follows: -%`-%HHf 3. Office of Auditor of Passenger Accounting. 4. Office of Auditor of Car Service Accounting. iHHHHHHW(including in all 32 seniority districts and rosters)

Rule 20 of Article III provides: '~'llhen for any reason two or more seniority districts are consolidated or divided, employes affected shall retain their seniority rights on the district to which transferred. *HMM

Carrier has consolidated Districts 3 and 4 and loss claims have been filed for employes adversely affected.

In the absence of restrictive rule Carrier may consolidate districts at will. Both Rules 5 and 20 are seniority rules. They must be construed to ;ether. In substance they provide that seniority rights will apply separately on the districts as described and in case of the consolidation

4

Award 110. 7

or division of districts they will be retained on the district to which transferred. The maintenance of rosters is important only to identify seniority rights.

By such protection of seniority rights we can find no intent to prohibit the consolidation or division of districts. If such was the intent Rule 20 would seem meaningless since if consolidation required neZotiation and agreement the adjustment of seniority rights would be accomplished by the negotiation and might be quite different than those provided in Rule 20. So there was negotiation and agreement in connection with the consolidation of the Salida Station and Yard Forces District with that of the Grand Junction Division Superintendent, where the provision for seniority rights was desired differing from that provided in Rule 20.

In Award 6066 on this property, Referee Uenke construed Rule 5 in connection with Rule 21 and held that Carrier was not restricted or limited in transferring work from one seniority district to another. The same reasoning requires denial of claim.

AHARD: Claim denied.

/s/ Mortimer Stone_

Mortimer Stone

Chairman, I1eutral Member

LL D. L. Clavel

D. L. Clavel

Carrier Member

11m. J. Donlon

Organization Member