Case No. 3
Docket No.
3
ORT FILE': 3073
SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. N0.
*553
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 (Pacific Lines), that:
CLAIM N0. 1
1. The Carrier, violates the Agreement between the parties
hereto when it removed from said Agreement work embracedby ,covered positions at the agency stations listed below,
and on the dates shown in connection therewith, transferred the work so removed to employes at Phoenix and/or
Tucson, Arizona, not covered by the.Telegrapherst Agreement :-
Rillito, January
12, 1959
Tempe, January 22,
1959
Chandler, January 21,
1959
Florence, February
3, 1959
Gilbert, February
3, 1959
Hayden, February
4~
1959
Mesa, January 22,
1959
Picacho, February
6, 1959
Ray Junction, February
4,
1959
2. The Carrier shall, because of the violation 'set forth
above, restore the work unilaterally removed'from the
agency stations thereto, and to the employes thereat
entitled to perform the work.
CLAIM N0. 2
1. The Carrier violates the Agreement between the parties
hereto when it removed from said Agreement work embraced
by covered positions at the agency stations listed below,
and on the dates shown in connection therewith, transferred the work so removed to employes at Klamath Falls,
_ ,~ S6 A 553
Ati-A 3
Oregon, and/or Redding, California, not covered by the
Telegraphers' Agreement:
(a) Tule Lake, California, March
19, 1959;
Macdoel,
California, March
25, 1959.
Claims effective
April
5, 1959.
(b) Weed, California, April
8, 1959.
Claim effec-
tive April
8, 1959.,
(c) Red Bluff, California, April
15, 1959.
Claim
' effective April
15, 1959.
.(d) Merrill, Oregon, March 20,
1959;
Chiloquin,
Oregon, March 24,
1959;
Dorris, California,
March 26,
1959;
Hilt, California, April
9,
1959;
Cottonwood, California,. April
15, 1959.
Claims effective April 16,
1959.
(e) Ashland, Oregon, April 22,
1959.
Claim effective
April 22,
1959.
(f) Chemult, Oregon, March 23,
1959.
Claim effective
April 23,
1959.
(g) Hornbrook, California, April
8, 1959.
Claim
effective April 26,
1959:
2. The Carrier shall, because of the violation set forth
above, restore the work unilaterally removed from the
agency stations thereto, and to the employes thereat entitled to perform the work.
CLAIM N0. 3
1. The Carrier violates the Agreement between the.parties
hereto when it removed from said Agreement work embraced
by covered positions at the agency stations listed below,
and on the dates shown in connection therewith, transferred the work so removed to employes at Los Angeles,
California, not covered by the Telegraphers'''Agreement.
Alhambra# California
4/
1/59
Anaheim, California
,~,/ 9/59
Beaumont, California
._,5/18/59
Burbank, California
4Y
2/59
City of Industry, Calif. 1/
9
Long Beach, Calif. 3/
9 59
Norwalk; California 3/
9/59
Ontario, California 4/
1/59
Pomona, California 4/
1/59
-2-
;~ S6A, 553
4Al vi
d
Santa Ana, Calif.
. 3/ 9/ 9
Santa Barbara, Calif*
5/219
Santa Susana, Calif.
. 6/ 1/59
Coachella, Calif.
5/18/60
Colton, California
5/ 1/s 9
Downey, California
3/ 9/ 9
Glendale, California
2/ 2/sS9
India, California
5/18/ 59
' San Fernando, Calif.
2 2/ 9
Saugus, California
2% 2M
Thermal, Calif.
5/18/59
Van Nuys.' Calif*
26/186/.9
Ventura, Calif.' /
West Palm Springs, Calif.
5/189
2.
The Carrier shall, because of the violations set forth"
above, restore the work unilaterally removed from the
agency stations thereto, and to the employes thereat entitled to perform the work.
CLAIM N0.
4.
1. The Carrier violates, the Agreement between the parties
hereto, when it removed from said Agreement work embraced
by covered positions at the agency stations listed below,
and on the dates shown in connection therewith, and transferred the work so removed to employes at Redding, California, not covered by the Telegraphers' Agreement:
Mt' Shasta, California April
13, 1959
Anderson, California April 21,
1959
2.
The Carrier shall, because of the violations set out
above, restore the work' unilaterally removed from the
agency stations thereto, and to the employes thereat entitled to perform the work.'
OPINION OF THE BOARD
The,four claims in this case involve the centralization by
Carrier of certain clerical work for approximately forty-nine stations at
five of Carrier's major stations where clerical work is regionalized.
During the period between January
12
and February
4, 1959,
Carrier trans
ferred the work of preparing waybills and freight bills, collecting
charges and various phases of accounting in connection with freight
-3-
S d
,A
55
3
~ wd 3
traffic fron nine stations in Arizona to either Tucson or
Phoenix,
Arizona. During the period between March.29 and,Apri1 23, 1959, Carrier
transferred similar work from eight stations in California and four stations in Oregon to either Redding, California,,,,or Klamath Falls, Oregon.
During the period from February 2 to June 24Y 1959 Carrier transferred
similar work from.26 stations in Cali fornia,to-Los.Angeles, California.
The Tempe claim is a duplicate of that
in
Case ,2.
All of the work transferred was clerical work and is being performed in the Central Stations by clerical employes, It was work that
had been performed by either Agent-Telegraphers, Clerical Employes or
Telegrapher-Clerks depending upon who was'on duty at the time the work
was performed.. In the case of Telegrapher-Clerks they performed the
duties to the extent they were not engaged iii telegraphic duties. Thirtyone of. the stations involved, had clerical employes not represented by the
Organization at the time the transfers were made, and as a result of the
changes thirty-eight Clerk positions were abolished in eighteen of the
stations. So the claims concern clerical work being performed at the
time by persons represented by the Brotherhood of Railway Clerks as well
as clerical work being performed by Agent-Telegraphers and TelegrapherClerks. Some of the stations had very little of the kind of work transferred and it is performed in the central offices in'a frabtion of an
hour per day. Nine of the stations have since been closed:. Rillito,
Florence, Picacho, Ray Junction, Hilt,-Hornbrook, Beaumont,:Coachella._
and Thermal.
The Organization contends that all of the work in.question.belongs to the persons covered by the Telegrapherst Agreement and that the
. _, S6A 553
~ wd 3
transfer in each instance, was a violation of the. Agreement. No claim is
made
for
comp'ehsation, but .the Organization asks that the' work be restored to each station from.'which it. was taken. It makes the same arguments which were advanced.,in Case, No. 2. .Altli6ugh there were minor
factual differences between this case and Case No. 2 and many more and
larger stations, are involved here_we find nothing in this case to ,justify
a different result, In our view the same principles apply here. Ther®fore, for the reasons which are fully expressed in Award No. 2 we hold
that Carrier.was within its rights in transferring the work 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
ha
D. obo,' Employe .ember .L, loan,
a
r er Member
San FrancLscos California . .
November 99 1964
-5-