C Award No. 20
0 Case No. 20
P
Y SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NO. 171
BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY AND STEATZSHIP
CLERKS,
FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS AND STATION EMPLOYES
vs
GR»:kT NORTHERN RAILITAY COMPANY
STATEMENT OF CLAITI:
4Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship
Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes that the Carrier violated the rules of the current agreement,
'al. When during the period July 25 to August 3, 1956, both dates inclusive, the Carrier increased and decreased positions at will regardless of the
Schedule Agreement.
U2. That the Carrier now be required to compensate employes as follows:
July 25, 1956 The !+ senior employes from the furloughed list for 8 hours
at the straight time rate for the 2nd shift of duty.
July 26, 1956 The 4 senior employes from the furloughed list for 8 hours
at the straight time rate for the 1st shift of duty.
July 27, 1956 The 8 senior employes from the furloughed list for 8 hours
at the straight time rate, 4 for the 1st shift and 4 for the
3rd shift of duty.
July 30, 1956 The 12 senior employes from the furloughed list for 8 hours
at the straight time rate, 4 for each of the 1st, 2nd and
3rd shift of duty.
July 31, 1956 The 4 senior employes from the furloughed list for 8 hours
at the straight time rate for the 3rd shift of duty.
August 1, 1956 The 10 senior employes from the furloughed list for 8 hours
at the straight time rate, 6 for the 2nd shift and 4 for the
3rd shift of duty.
August 2, 1956 The 2 senior employes from the furloughed list for 8 hours
at the straight time rate, for the 2nd shift of duty.
August
3,
1956 The 6 senior employes from the furloughed list for 8 hours
at the straight time rate for the 2nd shift of duty.iP
Award No. 20
Case No. 20
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.
This claim arises due to the fact that there was a steel strike which
affected the Ore Docks at Allouez, Wisconsin. On or about July 1, 1956 the
carrier,commenced reducing its force at the docks because of the strike. The
carrier, however maintained a force of some men on the first shift and, when
it was necessary, positions were filled on the second and third shifts..
The union contends that the carrier violated Rule No. 15 of the effective agreement and also violated a Memorandum of Agreement
dated April
15, 1950.
The carrier states that it complied with the terms of the agreement when
it was forced to reduce its force at A1louez, and that the only employees who
worked during the strike were the employees that were necessary from time to time
to load an occasional ore boat which would arrive at Allouez and also do a small
amount of work such as cleaning the docks. The carrier states that it
did comply
with Rule No. 11 (a) of the effective agreement.
From all the evidence, the Board finds that the carrier did not violate
Rule No. 15 of the effective agreement
and that
the Memorandum of Agreement which
the employees rely upon which was si.-ned on April 15, 1950 was signed by Division
Chairman Charles C. Denewith and by T. J. Greene (JIU), Superintendent at Allouez.
This agreement was never approved by the General' Chairman of the Brotherhood nor
by the proper officer of the Carrier. Therefore, it has no force and effect. For
these reasons this claim is denied.
A TI A R D
Claim denied.
/sl
Thomas C. Beppley
Thomas C. Begley - Chairman
(a/ C. A. Pearson
C. A. Pearson - Carrier Member
Ls
F. A. Emme
F. A. Emme - Employee Member
Signed at St. Paul, Minnesota this 11th day of September, 1957.
-2-