a
o
AWARD No. 15
0 CASE 140. 15
P
Y SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0. 1'71
BRCTHERTiC:)D OF RAILl'IAY AND STEAMFEIP CLERKS,
FREIG;T HAr:DLERS, HM-PRESS AND STAT_ON EMPLOYEES
1r3
GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY
STATEMENT OF CT.AIM:
"Claim,of the System Committee of the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship
Clerics, Freigh°: Handlers, Express and Ste ;ion L.ployees that the Carrier
violated the rules of the current agre&kent.
U1. When, on April 26, 1956, they failed to call Richard Hirt, Check Clerk
at Minneapolis Freight, to perform overtime work required on his regular
assignment.
172.
That the Carrier now be, required to compensate Richard Hirt, Check
Clerk at~Minneanolis Freight, for 2-~' hours at the overtime rate-for April
26, 1956, and each and every day thereafter untii June 19, 1956, when the
Carrier changed the assignment of the Check Clerk positior.fl
FINDINGS: This Special Board of Adjustment, upon the whole record and all the
evidence, finds that:
The Carrier and the employee or employees in this dispute are respectively Carrier and employees within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved
June 21, 1934.
This Special Board of Adjustment has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
The claimant states that in the year.1942 the Carrier started using lift
trucks at Minneapolis Freight Station. The dxty of operating these lift truck
machines was assigned exclusively to Check Clerks up until November 10, 1955,
when the Carrier bulletined a Tractor Driver position with duties of operating a
lift truck; that this was the first time of record that the operation of lift
trucks was assigned to a Tractor Driver position; that the organization protested
the bulletining of the Tractor Driver position, and that several conferences were
held with the Carrier; that the conferences continued up until April 25, 1956, when
the Carrier declined every proposal made by the organization to settle the controversy; and that when no agreement was reached, this claim was filed, that the
claimant operated a lift truck during his regular assignment, 10:30 A.M. to 7:00
P.R., and a Tractor Driver operated the lift truck during the hours of 7:00 P.M.
to 9:30 P.M. The organization states that the Carrier violated the effective agreement and particularly Rule 37.
P I
.
Award No. 15
The Carrier states that the operation of fork lift tracks has always
been regarded as fallin; within the classification of Tractor Driver and carries
the Tractor Driver rate; and that, when the Carrier requires Checkers to operate
fork lift trucks in the course of their other duties, the Checkers being in a
classification that calls for a higher rate, even though they perform the lower
rated tmrk of Tractor Driver, they are paid the higher rate for such work. The
Carrier further states that, when the volume of business has warranted, the Carrier
has assigned the operation of fork lift trucks to Tractor Drivers and has applied
the Tractor Driver's rate of pay. The Carrier further states that the organization
did not question the Carrier's ri.-ht to assign the operating of lift trucks to
Tractor Drivers; that the organization was anxious that fork lift drivers not perform checking duties; and that, if checking duties were performed, then the work
should carry the Checkers' rate.
From the evidence presented in this record, this Board can find no rule
violation by the Carrier, and finds from the bulletins herein presented in evidence that both the Check Clerk and the Tractor Driver could operate the lift
truck; therefore, this claim must be denied.
A 11 A R D
Claim denied.
/s/ Thomas C. Beale~r
Thomas C. Begley, Chairman
/s/ C. A. Pearson
C. A. Pearson, Carrier Member
/sj F. A. Emme
F. A. Emme, Employee Member
Signed at St. Paul, Minnesota, this 9th day of May, 1957.