SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0. 541
PARTIES TO DISPUTE
:
Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees
Erie Lackawanna Railway Company
STATEMENT OF CIAIM
:
Claim in behalf of the following truck drivers in the Maintenance of
Way Track Department on the Buffalo and Rochester Division:
E. Cruz A. C. Schults
T, Baker William Williams
J. Amatrano J. Majewicz
A. M. Rodriguez
and all other Truck Drivers who have operated automobile, bus or
truck in accordance with Rule 1 Scope, third Note of our existing
Agreement dated January 1, 1952, be compensated for the difference
in what they received and what they would have received if they were
properly compensated the prevailing Equipment Operator's rate of pay
from August 1, 1969, until the condition has been corrected due to
violation of Rule 1(a) Scope, third Note of,.the Agreement dated
January 1, 1952.
The Carrier shall also pay the Claimants six percent per annum on
the monetary allowance accruing from the initial claim date until
paid.
FINDINGS
It is Petitioner's position that truck drivers are entitled to the same
pay increase that work equipment operators have received pursuant to the
National Agreement of May 17, 1968. In support of that theory, it cites the
third Note to Rule 1, the Scope Rule, of its Schedule Agreement of January 1,
1952, with Carrier. That Note reads as follows:
"Automobile-bus-truck drivers are section, extra gang and other
t-aintenance of Way laborers - Class 1, and equipment operators -
Class 4, assigned to operate automobiles, buses and trucks in transporting employees and/or materials, etc., and will work. in section
or extra gangs while not operating automobile,, bus or truck and
shall be paid work equipment operator's rate."
The truck drivers mentioned in the Scope provision just quoted and work
equipment operators were paid the same wage rate from January 1, 1952, until
the National Agreement of May 17, 1968, was applied to Carrier's employees,
at which time work equipment operators, unlike claimants, received a twelve
cent hourly increase. The present dispute concerns that differential in pay.
The May 17, 1968 Agreement, to which both Carrier and the Organization
are parties, expressly provides for that twelve cent increase in Article VII.
Under that provision, the parties agreed that a classification and evaluation
. . Award No. 48
fund equivalent to five cents per hour for each employee covered by the Schedule Agreement would be established and that,adjustments in rates of pay would
be made from that fund in recognition of skills, responsibilities and training,
and to correct inequities.
Article VII then goes on to provide exactly how that fund will be applied.
Its provision in that regard is as follows:
"(a)
The rates of pay of employees reportable in ICC Reporting Divisions
29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 38
and
40
shall be increased by the
amount of twelve cents per hour effective July 1,
1968.
(b) The rates of pay of employees reportable in other IGO Reporting
Divisions, except Reporting Divisions
34, 36, 37, 41, 42, 43, 102
and
103,
whose hourly rates of pay as of March
31, 1968
were higher
than the average straight-time hourly rate of pay in March,
1968
for
the Reporting Division which on the individual railroad had the lowest average straight-time hourly rate of pay (determined by dividing
the total straight-time compensation by the total number of straighttime hours for the month of Karch,
1968)
among Divisions
29,.30, 31,
32, 33, 35, 38
and
40
shall also be increased by the amount of twelve
cents per hour effective July 1,
1968.
(c) The increase provided for in paragraphs (a) and (b) above shall
be in addition to the general increase provided for under Article I.
Section 1 of this agreement, and shall be applied to all hourly
daily, weekly, monthly and piece-work rates of pay so as to give
effect to this increase in pay irrespective of the method of payment."
That truck drivers are not within the Reporting Divisions specified in
Article VII is undisputed. Petitioner nevertheless maintains that since work
equipment operators' rates have been increased by the twelve.cent factor,
truck drivers must also be paid the total rate now received by work equipment
operators in view of Rule 1's terms. We disagree.
At the time Article VII and the remaining provisions of the May
17, 1968
National Agreement were negotiated, the Schedule Agreement and all applicable
wage rates were before and known to the parties. The Organization, no less
than Carrier, agreed that an earmarked fund of a certain and definite amount
would be available for Article VII increases and committed itself to the manner
in which that fund would be distributed. Accordingly, Rule 1 of the Schedule
Agreement was modified by mutual agreement to the extent that Article VII prescribed that work equipment operators, and not truck drivers, would receive a
wage increase.
If Petitioner desired to maintain the uniform pay provisions for truck
drivers and work equipment operators that existed at the time, it could have
provided for that condition by appropriate language in Article VII or some
supplemental agreement. Not only did it see fit not to include such a provision but in addition, together with Carrier it carefully defined just who
was entitled to the specific increase in question and determined how the fund
would be exhausted.
The instant claim is without merit and will be denied.
Claim denied.
Adopted at Cleveland, Ohio, October
s6, 1974.
/s/ H. M. Weston
H. M. Weston, Chairman
/s/ R. A. Carroll
R. A. Carroll, Carrier i4ember
A. J. Cunningham, Employee Member
Award No.
48