SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0. ~53
THE ORDER OF RAILROAD TELEGRAPHERS
SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY (PACIFIC LINES)
ROY R. RAY., Referee
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
"Claim of the General Committee of The Order of Railroad
Telegraphers on the.Southern Pacific Company (Pacific Lines),
that:
CLAIM N0. 1
1. The Carrier violated the effective agreement between
the parties hereto when, commencing June 9, 1958, it
removed from said agreement work embraced by the'
Agent-Telegrapher position at Tempe9 Arizona and
assigned the performance of such work to employes
not covered by said agreement-at Phoenix, Arizona.
2.(a) The Carrier shall, because of the violation set
out above, compensate K. M: Robblee, AgentTelegrapher, Temper Arizona, or his successor.
for a special call for each date June 17, 18 19~
. 209 2L+9,259 26~ 27; July
19
2 31) 89 91 10, il,
15, 169 172 189 22-1 239 249 2~9 29, 30 and 319
195$. .
(b) The Carrier shall compensate R. B. Stone,,
regularly assigned relief Agent-Telegrapher,
Tempel'Arizonal or~his successor .for a special
call each date June 169 23,.30;. July
7'
1~+1 21,
and 28' 1958..
(.c) The Carrier shall, in addition to the foregoing,
so long as the violation as set forth in Item 1
of this Statement of Claim continues subsequent
to July 319 1958, compensate Claimants Robblee
and Stone or hi-s, or.their successors, special
calls, in accordance with the provisions of the
parties' Agreement.
. ' ~ ~ ~~ 553
~~d a
CLAIM N0. 2
1, The Carrier violated the effective. agreement between
the parties hereto when, without conference or agreement
it removed from said agreement the work of preparing
waybills; signing bills of 'lading and work incidental
thereto, and the work of accounting for all LCL freight
destined to or arising at agency stations Fernley and
Hazen., Nevada, and transferred the'performance of this
work into a Regional Accounting Office at Reno, Nevada,
where it is performed by employes not covered by the
scope of the parties' Agreement.
2. The Carrier shall because of the violations set out
above, restore thi's work to the agreement and to the
employes thereunder at the agency stations from which
it was unilaterally removed.
3.
The Carrier shall, in addition to the foregoing, compensate D. A. Keel,, Agent-Telegrapher Fernley, or his .
successor, at the overtime rate per hour for the differ.
ence between the average hours of daily overtime worked
(exclusive of rest day overtime) for his - position from
June 1'
1955,
to June 1,
1958,
when the transfer of
work took place, and the average hours of daily overtime worked (exclusive of rest day overtime). for his
position from June 21
19589
until date such violation
has ceased, with,such payment to commence December
lT
19589
and
4.
The Carrier shall.compensate W. R. Godwin, Agent
Telegraphers Hazen, Nevada~e or his successor, at the
applicable rate of his position for any and all loss
sustained by him by reason of the Carrier's violative
act from the date of the claim (January 279
1959)
until the violation is corrected."
OPINION OF THE BOARD:
The two claims in this case involve the centralization by
Carrier of certain clerical work for three smaller stations at. Carrier's
major stations where clerical work is regionalized. On June l,
19582
Carrier transferred from ~ernleyy Nevada and Hazen, Nevada to Reno,
Nevada, the work of preparing freight bills, collecting charges' handling demurrage and various phases-of accounting in connection with
-2-
5B 553
freight traffic. On June 9, 1958, Carrier transferred from Temper
Arizona to Phoenix9 Arizona the work of preparing freight bills,
collecting charges and various phases of accounting in connection with
freight traffic. At Reno and Phoenix the work transferred has been and
is performed by clerks (not covered,by the Tglegraphers' Agreement.).
At the time of the transfer Fernley had an Agent-Telegrapher and
Telegrapher-Clerks around the clock; Hazen had only an Agent-Telegrapher'
and Tempe had an Agent-Telegrapher and.a Clerk. 'The Clerk's position
was abolished on January 30, 1959.
The Organization contends that the transferred work in each
instance was an integral part of the Agent's work and belonged to the
Agent-Telegrapher at each of the stations, and that the transfer constituted a violation of the Scope'Rule of the Agreement. It asks that
the Agent-Telegrapher. at each of the stations and his relief and their
successors be compensated for all losses they, have suffered through the
violations. In the case of Fernley and.Hazen it also asks that the work
be restored to Telegraphers at those stations.
Carrier takes the position that nothing in the Agreement gives
the Telegraphers an exclusive right.to perform this work and that they
have,not acquired any such exclusive right to the work through custom
and practice on this property. It asserts that .the work is clerical in
nature (admitted by the Organization) and has been performed-in the
past at these stations as well as at others on this property by AgentTelegraphers, Telegrapher-Clerks and Clerks. While at the time of the
transfer the work was being performed by Agent-Telegraphers or-
-3--t
- i s
S
e,
A 553
. . fwd . ~
Telegrapher-Clerks this did not give the Telegraphers a right to the
work. Carrier emphasizes the fact that at all these three stations
Clerks have done this type of work in the past.and that at Tempe a
Clerk was doing it at the time of the transfer. This is the Clerk's
position which was abolished on January 1,
1959.
The Organization has urged that the issue before the Board
is whether the Carrier can unilaterally remove work subject to the
Agreement at one station and transfer-it to employes of another craft
at another station. We agree that Carrier cannot take away work .
belonging to Telegraphers and assign it to Clerks. But the fallacy
in the Organizations statement is that it assumes the truth of thevery fact in issue, i.e., whether under the Scope Rule or by custom
and practice the transferred work 'belonged to the, Telegraphers.
The Scope Rule is general ,in character, i.e., it merely
lists positions and doe s. not describe the work of the positions. It
is well established by numerous awards of the Third Division that
under such a rule reference must be had to the custom and practice
on the property in order to determine whether particular work belongs
to those covered by the Agreement, In this case the burden is upon
the Organization to show that it is the custom and practice for
Telegraphers to perform this work to the exclusion of others.
What do the facts reveal with reference to how this work
has been performed on this property?, In 1938 Carrier began centralizing certain types of clerical work performed at its outlying
stations in its larger stations which were better equipped to handle
4
· s6
A 553 ,
~W
~ a
it. The types of work included have been way billing, preparation
of freight bills, demurrage, collections and accounting. In the first
year certain of t2rs.above functions were transferred from
19
stations.
This centralization progressed over the years without any complaint
from the Organization until
1951
when a claim was filed concerning
the telephoning of information on bills of lading by a Telegrapher at
Brentwood to a Clerk at Tracy to be used in connection with the
centralized preparation of billing at Tracy. At that time Tracy was
handling centralized, billing for 9 stations, each of which had one
or more persons covered by the Telegraphers' Agreement. No mention
was made in the claim as to the transmission of such information from
the other stations.
In 1953 a similar claim was filed in connection with a
clerical employe at Salinas phoning the same type of billing information to clerical employes at Watsonville Junction, this being the
central point at which way bills were prepared for Salinas and 8
other stations, ,Again no contention was made as to phone calls passing between the other stations and Watsonville,
These two claims were included in a Grand Officer's Docket
in 1954 and were denied by Carrier on April 9, 1951+, ,The Organization
did not appeal them further, By this time the centralization had
progressed to the point that various phases~of station clerical work
for 81 outlying stations (each of which'had~one.or more,Telegraphers)
were being handled in centrally located stations.
The Organization took no further action until
1958
when the
-5.
s8A553
Awd
claims in this docket were filed. In the intervening four years the
centralization of clerical work progressed rapidly, The number of
stations for
which
such work was centralized increased from 81 to
333.
As of the date of the hearing Carrier had 291 stations, 280 of which
were manned by Telegraphers as the top man. In 12 of these 291
stations some clerical work .is performed for each of the other
stations except four. These 12 do all of the.accounting and most-of
the collection work for 287 stations, Freight billing, waybilling
and demurrage are centralized in degrees but hot uniformly, The
transfer of the work at Tempe, Hazen and Fernley was a part of this
progressive."regionalizing" as it is termed which.has been in process
for 26 yearsr
As a result of the centralization of the Tempe work at
Phoenix the clerical position at Tempe was discontinued some seven
months latero The work at Reno for Fernley required about 30 minutes
per day and that for Hazen about 10 minutes per day. The business at
Hazen reached.such a low volume that the station was closed on
August 15' 1960.
From, the above it is apparent that Carrier had pursued the
practice of transferring clerical. work from stations.mannedi.by
Telegraphers for~some 13 years prior to 1951 without any complaint
from the Organization, and;for 20 year s. before present claims were
filed. During all of this' time the Organization was fully aware,of
the transfer of work. This
plus
the fact that the type of work
involved in these,claims had been performed at the stations inn
question as well as at other stations throughout the system
in
times
. _ SSA 553
~~
a
past interchangeably by Clerks, Agent-Telegraphers and TelegrapherCierks, depending upon availability of personnel, clearly shows that
the Organization has failed to prove that the Telegrapher. have any
exclusive right'to the work in preference to the clerks. The most
the evidence reveals is that in many stations at various times
Telegraphers have;performed this type of clerical work as incidental
to their primary functions as Telegraphers. This is not enough to .
vest in them an exclusive right to the work,
In the hearing before the Board, Article VIII of the
August 211
1954
Agreement was referred .to by Carrier as supporting
its position. That Article dealt with Proposal No, 24 made by
Carriers: "To establish a rule or amend existing rules to recognize
Carrierfs rights to assign clerical duties to telegraph service
employes and to assign communication. duties to clerical employes".
Article VIII as adopted reads, "This proposal is disposed of with the
understanding that present rules and practices are undisturbed." In
our view Article VIII has no relevance to the issue now before this
Board, We are dealing here with the right of Carrier to transfer
clerical. duties ,at one station to clerical-employes at another
station4..There.is no question in this case concerning the assignment
of clerical duties to Telegraphers or communication duties to Clerks.
FurthermoreQ, even, if Article VIII had any relevance it would not
affect the result here, It merely leaves the status
quo
undistrubed.
As of the time of,the
1954
Agreement, Carriers centralization of
clerical-work had been in process for 16 years and affected the
clerical
work
at 81 stations,' Moreover, work of the type in question
here had in the past been performed a't the,stations involved as well
as at other .stations over the system.by Clerks9 Agent-Telegraphers or
Telegrapher-Clerks-depending-on the availability of the personnel. .
For the reasons expressed we conclude that Carrier was
within its rights in making the work assignments involved and that the
claims are without merit. . ,
FINDING
That Carrier did not violate the Agreement,
,_
AWARD- ' .
The claims are denied.'
SPECIAL BOARD'OF ADJUSTMENT N0,
553
Roy' R. Rayy ,Chairmarn .
D. A, Bobo,. mploye Member
Sari Franciscoy California
November'
9;.:19§4-
Wy S~' Cagier
Member