R A :C L W A Y L A B O R ~k C
T
Special Board of Adlustment No. 226
hearings Ail 9 30, 1968 _ ° .``;,
Dallas, Texas
Award
N26
PARTIES TO DISPUTE, '"=,;:::, ._.
THE ORDER
OF RAILROAD
'fELEGRAIS "`
MSSOURI-YAWAS-TEXAS
LINES
S~A~r~rrr
of nR°~
rLAxMS MSC7-xx and
s-.zoo-xx~
CRT Claims are claims that the Carrier violated the Telegraphers' Agreement, Rule 18
thereof, in appointing L. L. Stricklin and W. L. Rutledge as Supervisory Agents at Houston
and Fort Worth, Texas, rexpectively; and that such appointments shall be rescinded and
appointments made in accordance with Rule 1.8.
FINDINGS AND OPINION;
Rule 18 provides,
"Employes covered by these rules who are used in dispatchers' office or
who desire promotion to train dispatcher or supervisory agent, not covered
by these rules will be given preference over others where ability is
sufficient and will retain their rights to their position for six (6)
months, and at the expiration of six (65 months their position becomes
vacant subject to Rule 2., paragraph
(a5.
In the event they desire to
return to service covered by these rules on their seniority district
they may do too after six (6_) months, taking their place on the extra
list with full seniority."
The CRT in its brief contends that "neither Stricklin nor Rutledge were 'employes'
cornered by these rules." It contends .further that neither of them "were in the proper
category to '.retain their rights to their position` or to cause 'their positions' to
become vacant subject to Rule 2, Paragraph (ay." which provides for bulleting of vacancies.
,~ L,_Stricklin< Houston,
CRT
Claim MC-7-x2. Mr. Stricklin's seniority as a telegrapher dates from November '1 .1, 1924. lie was promoted under Rule 18 to the position o£
train dispatcher a number of ;ears ago. He was 'Later promoted under Rule 19 to an official
position as Assistant Superintendent. The ORT states also that inasmuch as the position of
Assistant Superintendent pays more than the position of Supervisory Agent at Houston, Mr.
Strickl-in did not receive a "promotion" when he was transferred from Assistant Superintendent to Supervisory Agent at Houston. It states, further,
`Therefore under such conditions you will have to remove Mr. Stricklin
from the Supervisory Agency at Houston,Texas, and comply with the
Agreement as
it
is written, air satisfy us as to the appointment."
IIn declining the ORT protest against appointment of Mr. Stricklin at Houston, on July
16, 1956, the Carrier states,
"The vacancy at Houston was offered to the Agents at Garland and
ldi'litary, whom we felt possessed the necessary qualifications to
handle this important agency, but they declined to accept the position. It was for this reason the classification of the position was
changed to Superintendent of Terminals in order to give Mr. Stricklin
some incentive for accepting the promotion, which we did after several days` consideration,"
Mr. Strickln wag`"transferred" from the position of Assistant Superintendent of
the position of "Superintendent of Terminals" at Houston. He was not "promoted"under
the-=provisions of Rule 18 applying to promotions. But there is no absolute prohibition
in.-the: Telegraphers' Agreement against filling the supervisory position at one of
eighteen stations named in Rule 1 (b) by such a transfer. If employes mentioned for
"preference" in Rule 18 refuse appointment to a supervisory station or do not posses
sufficient ability to fill a vacancy at a supervisory station, it would be unreasonable
to hold that'Carrier could not transfer an Assistant Superintendent to such position if
he
possesses
sufficient ability to perform the duties at the vacant position. Such a
ruling conceivably could cause a vacancy at a supervisory station to go unfilled indefinitely even though a competent person is available to fill it.
Rule 1 (b) of the
Telegraphers' Agreement
provides that,
"The following stations are considered supervisory and are not subject
to the rules of the agreement except Rule 1 and 18
"
It lists eighteen of the largest cities on the Carrier's system, including Houston and
Fort Worth.
Subsection (a) of Rule 1 is the Scope Rule. The other subsections of Rule 1, being
subsections (c),
(d) and (e) are wholly irrelevent to the subject of supervisory stations.
Subsection (a) of Rule 1 designates job titles to which the Agreement applies but it
does not list the term "Supervisory Agent" or "Supervisory Station" or any other job
title applicable to Houston or Fort Worth. Moreover, in view of the provision in subsection (b) of Rule 1 that Houston and Fort Worth are considered "Supervisory", we would
not expect to find a job title in Rule 1 (a), the Scope Rule, applicable to Houston and
Fort Worth. Rule 1 (a) has no pertinancy to supervisory stations.
Therefore, we find that the job title used at Houston is immaterial and that Rule 1
(b) is not violated because the Carrier uses the job title "Superintendent of Terminals"
at its supervisory station at Houston.
At the hearing the Carrier obtained information from its files that there are twentyfive different job titles at Houston with one employe under each and one job title as
"Stevedore" with 10 employes under it. At Fort Worth there are eight different job titles
with one employe under each and one job title as "Stevedore" with four employes under it.
The ORT did not submit any evidence contradicting the Carrier's proof that both Houston
and Fort Worth are in fact "supervisory" stations under Rule 1 (b).
Therefore, we find that both Houston and Fort Worth are "supervisory" stations.
Having found (1) that the job title used by the Carrier at a supervisory station is
immaterial, (2) that Houston is in fact a supervisory station, (3) that the Carrier is not
prohibited from transferring an Assistant Superintendent to the position of Superintendent
of Terminals at Houston, providing available employes in the Telegraphers' seniority list
are given "preference" in case they possess sufficient ability, we now consider whether
Rule 18 was violated by the transfer of Mr. Stricklin to the supervisory position at Houston.
The ORT did not offer proof that any named individual on its seniority list desires
appointment and possesses sufficient ability to perform the duties at Houston and therefore was entitled to the appointment ahead of Mr. Stricklin. The burden of proof is on
the ORT.
Therefore, there could be no violation of Rule 18 by appointment of Mr. Stricklin
until an available employe on the ORT seniority list is named by the ORT in its claim and
it is proven that he possesses sufficient ability to handle the work at Houston.
For the foregoing reasons CRT Claim MC 7-22 will be denied.
ORT Claim MSC 8-207-22 protesting appointment of W. L. Rutledge at Forth Worth.
This claim was withdrawn.
.. AWARD
Claim MC 7-22 denied.
Claim MSc 8-207-22 withdrawn.
!s/ Daniel C. Rollers
Daniel C. Rogers, Chairman
Fayette, Missouri
Is/
W. I. Christopher lsl A. F. Winkel
W. I. Christopher, Employee Member A. F. Winkel, Carrier Member
Deppty President, 0. R. T. Ass't. General Manager
3860 Lindell Blvd. Missouri-Kansas-Texas Lines
St. Louis 8, Missouri Dallas, Texas
Dallas, Texas
August 1, 1958