i
v
i
Award No,
25
Docket No.
25
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NO,
239
(Clerkst Board, St. Louts, Missouri)
PARTIES TO DISPUTE
:
BROTHERHOOD OF RAIL4JAY AND STEAMSHIP CLERKS, FREIGHT HANDLERS,
EXPRESS AND STATION EPL?LOYES
and
MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
:
Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
1. Carrier violated the Clerks' Agreement when, effective at the
close of business on Friday, January 16,
1959,
it nominally
abolished the position of Cashier and Check Clerk at Russellville,
Arkansas, and effective Monday, January
19, 1959,
it removed the
clerical work that the Cashier and the Check Clerk had been performing exclusively from under the scope and operation of the
Clerkst Agreement by requiring employes of the Carrier and employer of the Missouri Pacific Freight Transport Company, both
of which are outside of the scope of the Clerks' Agreement to
perform the work, which was in violation of Scope Rule 1, Rules
2, 3
and related rules of the Clerkst Agreement.
2.
The Carrier be required to reestablish the Cashier and Check
Clerk positions at Russellville, Arkansas and place the clerical
work at that station back under the scope and operation of the
Clerks' Agreement.
3
(a). The Carrier shall pay Clerk 11. E. Greer, sixty cents for
January
19, 1959,
the difference between the Cashier rate of
X19.38
at Russellville, Arkansas, and the Bill Clerk rate of
$18.78
at Morrilton, Arkansas, to which Clerk Greer exercised
his seniority after his former position of Cashier at Russellville was abolished, claims to continue to accumulate and accrue
until the violation is corrected.
(b). The Carrier shall pay Clerk C. C. Childers a pro rata day's
pay of
"?18.30
for January
19, 1959,
the rate of the Check Clerk
position at Russellville, Arkansas, account this day lost by
Clerk Childers in moving from one position to another, and required to break in on position of Check Clerk at Fort Smith,
Arkansas, and twelve cents per day for the difference in the
rate of Check Clerk position at Russellville.
$18.30
and the
Check Clerk position at Fort Smith, Arkansas,
$18,18,
to which
position he exercised his seniority when his former position of
Check Clerk at Russellville was abolished on January
16, 1959,
claims to continue to accumulate and accrue until violation is
corrected.
i
s
aA
23CI
Award. No.
25
Docket Nc.
25
(c). The Carrier shall pay Clerk T. 0. Hendricks a pro rata day s
pay at the rate of the Bill Clerk position at Morrilton, Arkansas,
618.78
for January
19, 1959,
account Clerk Hendricks lost that
day when he was displaced from that position and in turn exercised
his seniority to the position of Ticket Clerk, rate
X18.78,
at
Fort Smith, Arkansas.
OPINION OF BARD:
Russellville, Arkansas, is a way station on the main line about
75
miles
northwest of Little Rock. The last clerical positions, Cashier and Check Clerk,
were abolished at that location on January
16, 1959.
Claimants W. E. Greer and
C. C. Childers were the incumbents at the time.
The dispute is over the scope of work under the Agreement with Clerks,
Rules 1,
2, 3,
5,
Scope, Classifications, Seniority, Seniority Districts and
Rosters, in that order, are put in issue by the submissions.
The Employes contend there is work remaining that is subject to their
Agreement with Carrier, and now being performed by persons upon whom the Agreement confers no rights. The Employes hold this to be a violation of Scope Rule 1
of said Agreement.
Carrier disputes the 5nployes' claim that the Agreement with its Clerks
was violated when it rearranged its station forces at Russellville so as to
assign the remaining clerical duties to Telegraphers in order to give said Telegraphers a full complement of work to sustain those positions for an eight-hour
tour of duty.
Carrier reasons that its position must be the correct ohe because, in
the instant case, there were train order and telegraphic duties to be performed
on each eight-hour tour of duty; and, under those conditions, the Telegrapher
positions must be retained when forces are reduced, on account of views expressed
in awards of the Third Division, National Railroad Adjustment Board, to the effect,
so Carrier contends, that Clerks cannot be assigned telegraphic duties, but
Telegraphers may be assigned clerical duties to fill out a tour of duty.
The Employes challenge Carrier's views with respect to what the Adjustment Board's awards do hold in such cases as the instant one. Russellville is
not to be classed with the one-man stations which the Elnployes say are so frequently referred to in Board awards for applying the "flow and ebb" doctrine.
The strength of the Employes' case before this Board lies in the undisputed facts that the remaining station force at Russellville, after reduction,
consisted of an Agent, and three Telegraphers. Hence, four positions remained.
None was kept on under the Clerks' Agreement. The Agent qualifies to perform
telegraphic work under that Agreement. Prior to the abolishment of the two
clerical positions, he covered the telegraphic duties on the first trick. In
connection with the force reduction, the telegraphic work was removed from his
position, and a first trick Telegrapher position was created to take over those
duties.
spat
z3°k
Award. No.
25
Locket Nc.
25
(c). The Carrier shall pay Clerk T. 0. Hendricks a pro rata day's
pay at the rate of the Bill Clerk position at Morrilton, Arkansas,
'18.78
for January
19, 1959,
account Clerk Hendricks lost that
day when he was displaced from that position and in turn exercised
his seniority to the position of Ticket Clerk, rate
m18.78,
at
Fort Smith, Arkansas.
OPINION OF BARD:
Russellville, Arkansas, is a way station on the main line about
75
miles
northwest of Little Rock. The last clerical positions, Cashier and Check Clerk,
were abolished at that location on January
16, 1959.
Claimants fir. E. Greer and
C. C. Childers were the incumbents at the time.
The dispute is over the scope of work under the Agreement with Clerks.
Rules 1,
2, 3, 5,
Scope, Classifications, Seniority, Seniority Districts and
Rosters, in that order, are put in issue by the submissions.
The Employes contend there is work remaining that is subject to their
Agreement with Carrier, and now being performed by persons upon whom the Agreement confers no rights. The Employes hold this to be a violation of Scope Rule 1
of said Agreement.
Carrier disputes the anployes' claim that the Agreement with its Clerks
was violated when it rearranged its station forces at Russellville so as to
assign the remaining clerical duties to Telegraphers in order to give said Telegraphers a full complement of work to sustain those positions for an eight-hour
tour of duty.
Carrier reasons that its position must be the correct one because, in
the instant case, there were train order and telegraphic duties to be performed
on each eight-hour tour of duty; and, under those conditions, the Telegrapher
positions must be retained when forces are reduced, on account of views expressed
in awards of the Third Division, National Railroad Adjustment Board, to the effect,
so Carrier contends, that Clerks cannot be assigned telegraphic duties, but
Telegraphers may be assigned clerical duties to fill out a tour of duty.
The kMployes challenge Carriers views with respect to what the Adjustment Board's awards do hold in such cases as the instant one. Russellville is
not to be classed with the one-man stations which the Fmployes say are so frequently referred to in Board awards for applying the "flow and ebb" doctrine.
The strength of the Employes' case before this Board lies in the undisputed facts that the remaining station force at Russellville, after reduction,
consisted of an Agent, and three Telegraphers. Hence, four oositions remained.
None was kept on under the Clerks' Agreement. The Agent qualifies to perform
telegraphic work under that Agreement. Prior to the abolishment of the two
clerical positions, he covered the telegraphic duties on the first trick. In
connection with the force reduction, the telegraphic work was removed from his
position, and a first trick Telegrapher position was created to take over those
duties.
_ 2 -
0
S /3A 23°1
Award No. 25
Docket No. 25
According to other undisputeo evidence, about twelve hours' clerical
rrork in the aggregate, remains. There are about two hours of train order and
other telegraphic work on each of the first and second tricks, "practically none"
on the third trick. To cover all the work, the station force now consists of an
Agent, a first trick Telegrapher, a second trick Telegrapher, and a swing Telegrapher. The Agent has no assigned hours. The, swing Telegrapher works "various"
hours. The first and second trick Telegraphers work assigned hours that afford
continuous coverage from 6:00 A. M. to 10:00 P.M.
Our first impression, based upon the foregoing facts, was that a force
reduction clearly was in order, but it did appear that the tail was wagging the
dog. The preponderance of the work that remains is clerical. There is not
enough train order and other telegraphic work, in the aggregate, to sustain one
Telegrapher position.
But, according to Carrier, the self-evident need to reduce forces is
surrounded by the further need to distribute the work in keeping with service
requirements that must be met over a 24-hour period, by two Telegraphers, with
assigned hours, and a third for relief outside the assigned hours of the other
two. Carrier is further able to justify the need of an Agent at an agency station.
We have found little of real value in the many awards cited and
examined. Most are distinguishable on rules or facts.
The leading authority in disputes involving a conflict between the
scope of the Clerks' Agreement and that of the Telegraphers' is Third Division,
N.R.A.B. Award No. 615, the late Frank M. Swacker, Referee, assisting. While we
question whether that award is as far reaching as the use to which it has been
put in other disputes would indicate, said award does have a peculiar impact
upon this dispute, as a careful reading of same and what is later said herein
will show.
After a careful study of the written submissions and awards, but before
hearing, we leaned-in favor of the Employes' position in this docket. It bothered us that we have here a case of work being taken from under one Agreement and
placed under another, without conference and agreement. The anployes holding
the favored Agreement were pleased to have the work, so far as we know, in order
to sustain positions that otherwise would be in jeopardy, but the Employes holding the Agreement from which the work had been removed look with disfavor upon
the move. It proved particularly troublesome to us that a new position (first
trick Telegrapher) was created to assume duties that had been covered satisfactorily by the Agent-.Telegrapher.
On the other hand, we were not impressed from the outset that Clerks
at the given location had the exclusive right to perform all non-telegraphic
duties, in view of the showing made in the written submissions that Telegraphers
had done some clerical work such as selling tickets and giving telephone information about passenger service.
We approached the hearing in the unsettled state of mind, before
mentioned, to be told by responsible Carrier officers that Award No. 615, sypra,
always had been their "Bible" and has been religiously followed on this property
down through the years to the present, without serious protest. The represen
tation was not seriously challenged but we asked, nevertheless, for concrets
evidence. Among other files produced, was one covering reduction of forces at
Dexter, Missouri, in 1945. We also learned that, at Garnett, Kansas, in 1949,
-3-
s
4 A 2301
Award No.
25
Docket No.
25
an additional Telegrapher position was created and established on the first trick
to take over the Telegraphic work formerly performed by an Agent-Telegrapher, in
connection with a force reduction. Among other passages found in Award
615,
supra, are the following:
"It has always been the rule that telegraphers may be assigned
clerical work without limit except their capacity to fill out
their time when not occupied with telegraphy."
The above is followed by the sentence:
"For obvious reasons in diminution of force, a clerk cannot undertake or be accorded telegrapher's duties but the converse is not
true; on the contrary, where two positions are involved, one,
that of a clerk, and the other, that of a telegrapher, and one
is to be abolished, the telegrapher - if any telegraph duties
remain - has the absolute right to the position including the
assumption of the remaining clerical duties."
The Referee next said, among other observations, that:
"Considerable point is made in this case of the fact that over
seven and one-half hours of the incumbents time are devoted to
clerical duties and only one-half hour to telegraphic duties;
stated thus it might be inferred that the one-half hour of
telegraphic duties is confined to that much elapsed time. There
is no warrant however for that inference and the probabilities
are that the telegraphic duties are scattered throughout the
shift. It is this necessity which dictates the assignment of
the position to a telegrapher."
The opinion concludes as follows:
"If joint conferences between the carrier and the two organizations
involved are held when such changes are contemplated, they should
operate to reduce the number of disputes of this character."
heartily
While we subscribe /to what is said last above, the parties to these
disputes, on this, and other properties, for reasons best known to them, have not
yet found conference and agreement the practical approach for settlement of
their problems. Therefore, Award
615,
supra, while not always controlling, is
authority on this property for settlement of this character of dispute until
the parties work out some other method for resolving their recurring differences
over force reductions.
The 3nployesl objections to handling of the L.C.L. freight by Missouri
Pacific Freight Transport Company employes is fully covered by this Board s
denial Award No.
24
and we do not find anything in this submission to differentiate
between the two dockets.
Award No. 25
Docket N3c. 25
FIP' DINGS:
The Board, after oral hearing, u,)on all the record and all of the
evidence, finds and holds:
That the Carrier and the Employee involved in this dispute areyrNYsnectively Carrier and Wloyes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act,
as amended;
That jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein has been conferred
upon this Hoard by special agreement; and
That the Agreement by and between the Darties to this dispute was not
violated.
AWARD
Claims denied.
SDPCIAL BOARD Js APJUSTMUT N0. 239
/s/ A. Langley
COEf ey
A. Langley Coffey, Chairman
/s/ G.
T -T.
Johnson
Employer Member.
1sl
'FFraAk D
.I
Lupton
~p~yes Member '~
Dated at St. Louis, Missouri
this 15th day of December 1961 '. _
File 205-3226 '-- --