C AWARD N0.
3
0 CASE N0.
3
P
Y SPECIAL BOARD OF
BROTHERHOOD OF RAI~W7~r~AY AND STEAMSHIP CLERICS,
FREIGHT HANDLERS,
EMESS
AND STATION EMPLOYEES
vs
GREAT NORTHERN RAIIIr'IAY COMPANY
STATEMENT OF
CLAIM:
UClaim 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,
effective September 1,
1950,
01.
When on August 6 and
7, 1953
the Carrier required LaVern
Iverson, and Henry Petroske, Bill Clerks at Allouez Freight, and
other E:I11 Clerks
who
performed this work later with a rate of
pay at the time of this claim of
ve14-33,
to take over and perform
duties of positions paying a rate of
;r15-11
per day,
112.
That the Carrier now be required to compensate LaVern Iverson
and Henry Petroske and all others
who
were required later to perform this work; the difference of
78¢
per day for August 6 and
7,
1953
and each and every day thereafter that the Carrier required
lower rated employee to perform higher rated work.,
FINDINGS: This Special Board of Adjustment upon the whole record and all the
evidence, finds that:
The Carrier and the employe 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 Employees state that on the claim dates enumerated herein the claimants were required to perform certain duties as part of their billing work which
were duties that should have been performed and had been assigned to assistant
weighmasters; that these duties included adding gross and tare weights and balancing net weights and applying tare weights missed when weighing and sorting weighbi11s when sorted wrong in preparation for billing.
Employees further contend that due to the fact that the claimants, who
were bill clerks, performed the higher rated work, that they should receive the
rate of pay of assistant weighmasters. The Dnployees state that the Carrier has
violated Rules
48, 50
and
51.
.
Award No. 3
The Carrier states that the work,performed by the bill clerks, for which
they are now asking the higher rate of pay, is work that has always been performed
by bill clerks but ?.n
P
different method; that machines have now been added to
help the bill clerks to perform some of their work. Carrier further states the
mere fact that an assistant weighmaster sometimes adds columns of figures and
that the billing clerks and the assistant weighmaster use the same machine for
adding is no reason to state that the billing clerks are performing assistant
weighmaster duties; and that actually adding is a more dominant incident of billing
clerks? duties than it is of assistant weighmastersp duties.
The Carrier further states that the duties performed by the claimants
have always been assigned duties of billing clerks, but admits that Sometimes the
assistant weighmaster might perform some of these duties; that the pre-adding
procedure was set up so that billing clerks could determine whether or not they
had made an error
in
billing; the tare weight is essential in that it is impossible to biU z.nd arrive at a net without it; and that in sorting if the bill clerks
did not correct a sorting error when found, it would simply mean that they would
be faced later with the need to rebill this group when the error was discovered,
and that when they re-sort in order to consolidate two small groups into one large
group, it is for their own convenience in reducing the number of dock waybills they
must produce.
From the evidence produced at the hearing, the Board finds that there has
been no showing by the Employees that the work performed by the claimants was work
that belonged to the classification of assistant weighmasters; that on the other
hand the work performed by the claimants was work that properly fell within their
classification. Therefore, this claim must be denied.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
/s/ Thomas C. BAn,1ev
Thomas C. Begley, Chairman
s C. A. Pearson
C. A. Pearson, Carrier Member
/s/ F. A`Elpme
F. A. Emme, Employee Member
Signed at St, Paul, Minnesota, this 10th day of April, 1957.