AWARD N0. 36
B E F 0 R E CASE N0. 91
ORT FILE: BU-5055-22
.- -,x W ::,-;._' . SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NO. 226

r- Dallas, Texas

THE ORDER OF RAILROAD TELEGRAPHERS vs MISSOURI-KANSAS-TEXAS RAILROAD COMPANY MISSOURI-KANSAS-TEXAS RAILROAD COMPANY OF TEXAS

STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

1. The Carrier violated the Telegraphers" Agreement when ft failed and refused to apply the Parker, Kansas Agent-Telegrapher's rate of pay after consolidating that position with the Agent-Telegrapher's position at Centerville, Kansas, effective April 16, 1959.

2. The Carrier violated the Telegrapher's Agreement when it failed and refused to apply the Walnut, Kansas Agent-Telegrapher's rate o£ pay after consolidating that position with the Agent-Telegrapher's position at St. Paul, Kansas, effective April 25, 1959.

3. The Carrier shall now be required to apply the higher rates at Centerville and St. Paul beginning from the respective dates of said consolidations and compensate the incumbents of these positions accordingly.

Rule 6 (b) specifies that,

"When two positions are consolidated the higher rate will apply."

The concept o£ "consolidation" as expressed in Rule b (b) is that two positions

will be united to form a new position. The higher rate of the two consolidated posi
tions applies because of transfer of enough of the higher quality work o_ the higher
paying position to the new position to rate the new position at such higher rate o£
pay. Or, the higher rate of pay at the new position may be justified because the
volume of work transferred to the new position classifies it for the higher rate of
pay. In the consolidation of two positions, the identity of such work from the
higher paying position must be possible in the new position before it shall carry
the higher rate of gay as provided in Rule 6 (b).

The fact that the Carrier, after procuring Kansas Corporation Commission authority to close the stations at Parker and Walnut, announced that "accounting for this station will be handled" at the surviving nearby station is not proof in itself that

~. 2 -

consolidations, as per Rule 6 (b), were effected. There is no proof in the record of any work, in fact, being performed at Centerville or St. Paul which had been performed previously at Parker and Walnut, respectively. Even if some such proof had been supplied, we doubt seriously it would prove "Consolidations".

Finally, the Carrier states that,

" many stations have been closed on this railroad in the

past, under the same circumstances as involved here, and

this has never been considered to be in violation of the

Agreement. As a matter of fact, this is not covered by the

Agreement but is governed by law subject to the convenience

and necessity of the public."

obviously, the closing of stations, by State Authority, where business has vanished is not in itself a violation of a labor agreement. The vital question here is whether "Consolidations" subject to Rule 6 (b) have occurred. It is common knowledge that when railroad stations are so closed that such action has never been held to be a "Consolidation" with a surviving nearby station, such as that term is intended under Rule 6 (b).

AWARD:

Claim denied.

/a/ Daniel C, Rogers

Daniel C. Rogers, Chairman

Attorney at Law

211-212 Commercial Trust Company

Fayette, Missouri

/s/ W. 1. Christopher ./s/ A. F. Winkel
W.I.Christopher, Employee Member A. F. Winkel, Carrier Member
Deputy President, ORT Vice President -- Personnel
3860 Lindell Blvd. Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Company
St. Louis 8, Missouri- Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Company
of Texas
Dallas 2, Texas
Dallas, Texas
June 7, 1960
November 2, 1960