Doc No. 4


            ORT FILE: 3030 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 violated the effective agreement between the parties hereto, when commencing January 12, 1959,. it removed from said agreement work embraced by the' agent-telegrapher's position at Benson, Arizona, a one-man agency, and assigned the performance of such work to employes not covered by the Telegraphers' agreement at Tucson, Arizona,


            2. The Carrier shall., because of the violation set forth above, compensate A. Adams, agent-telegrapher.; Benson, Arizona, or his successor, one special call for each date January 12, 13, 14, 159 and 16, 1959; and on each subsequent date that the violations as set out in Item 1 above continue.


                        CLAIM N0. 2


            1. The Carrier violated the effective agreement between the parties hereto, when commencing January 13, 1959, it removed from said agreement work embraced by the agent-telegrapher, and other'po'sitions at,Rillito, Arizona, and assigned the performance'-of such work to employes not covered by the Telegrapherst agreement at Tucson and Phoenix, Arizonas


            2. The Carrier shall, because of the violation set out -above, compensate the following:


            (a) J. Y. Wray, 4th telegrapher-clerk, Rillito,

                Arizona, or his successor, for a special call

                January 13, 14, and 15, 1959 . ... .

_ · S13A553

                                                kwd


                      (b) R. W. DeHart, 2nd telegrapher-clerk, Rillito. Arizona, or his successor, for a special call January 14, 15, 16, and 17, 1959.


                  (o) R. H. Colton, relief agent-telegrapher-telegrapher

                  clerk, Rillito, Arizona, or her successor, for a

    ' special call, January 13, 1959.


          3. 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 the dates set forth immedi

          ately above, compensate the regularly assigned telegraphers

          as listed in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), or their successor,

          as provided for. by applicable rules. _


                                CLAIM N0. 3


              1. The Carrier violated the effective agreement between the parties hereto, when commencing February 10, 1959,. it_xemoye.d__ . from said agreement work embraced by the agreement.at Fowler; Selma; Kingsburg; Goshen Junction; Sanger; Reedley; Dinuba; Ivanhoe; Exeter; Lindsay; Clovis, Friant; Visalia;, Hanford; Armona; Lemoore; Stratford; Huron and Coalinga, and assigxied the performance of such work to employes not covered by the Telegraphers' agreement at Fresno, California.


          2. The Carrier violated the effedtive agreement between the

          parties hereto, when commencing March 27,_1959, it removed

          from said agreement'work embraced by the Agreement at Tehachapi;

          Monolith; Lancaster;.Palmdale; Owenyo; Lone Pine; and Inyokern,

          and assigned the performance of such work to employes not covered

          by the Telegraphers' agreement at Ma.Jade. California.


              3. The Carrier violated the effective agreement between the parties hereto, when commencing March 6, 1959, it removed from`,said

    -: agreement wprk embraced by the agreement at Tipton; Earlimart~

              Delano; McFarland; Famoso; Buttonwillow; Edison; Jovista; Ducor~

              and Porterville; and assigned the performance of such work to

              employes not covered~,by the Telegrapherst agreement at Bakers

              field, California. .


              4, The Carrier-shall, because of the violations set out above, restore this work to the agreement and to the employes thereunder at the agency stations from which it was unilaterally removed.


          5, The Carrier shall, in addition to the foregoing, compensate each

          ' , and every employe,,if any, adversely affected by the violative

          acts of,the Carrier, for 'any wage losses sustained together with

          reimbursement for any expense.incurred~p

. _ 1 · S 6A .553


    OPINION OF THE BOARD,

    The three claims in this case involve the centralization by Carrier of certain clerical work for thirty-nine smaller stations at five of Carrierts major stations where clerical work is regionalized. On January 12 and 13, 1959 Carrier transferred the work of preparing waybills and freight bills, collection of charges and various phases of station accounting in connection with freight traffic from Benson and Rillito, Arizona to Tucson and Phoenix., Arizona respectively. (The Rillito claim is a duplicate of that in Case No. 3).

    On February lOD 1959 Carrier transferred similar work from nineteen stations in California to Fresno, California.. On March 6. 1959 Carrier transferred similar work. from ten stations in California to Bakersfield, California. On March 27, 1959 Carrier transferred similar work from seven stations in California to Mojave, California.

    All of the work transferred was clerical work and is being performed in the central station by clerical employes. It was work that had been performed by either Agent-Telegraphers, Clerical Employes or TelegrapherClerks depending upon who was or. duty at the time the work was performed. In the case of the Telegrapher-Clerks they performed the duties,to the extent, they were not engaged in telegraphic duties. At the time of the transfer 10 of the stations had clerical employes not represented by the Organization., and as a result of the changes clerical,positions in eight of these stations were abolished. 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 Telegraphers.

                                              Si3A 553

/,WG It should also be noted that perishable waybilling for twenty-five of these same stations had been previously centralized at Fresno and Bakersfield in 1948 without any complaint, Ten of the stations have been closed since the transfers Rillito9 Goshen Junction, Clovis,, Friant, Armona, Stratford, Oswego, McFarland, Famoso and Buttonwillow.
 The Organization contends that all the work in question belonged to the persons covered by .its Agreement and that the transfer in each instance was a violation of the Agreement;,. As to Benson and Rillito it asks for compensation for the Telegraphers and their successors as well as restoration of the work. For all the other stations only restoration of the work is requested. The Organization makes the same arguments in this case which it advanced in Case No, 2, There are minor factual differences between the two cases and many larger stations are involved in the present claims. But we find nothing which justifies a different result. In our view the same principles are.'applicable, Therefore, for the reasons i

    fully expressed in Award No, 2 we hold. that Carrier was within its j

    rights in transferring the work and that the claims are without merit.


                              FINDING j

                                                              t


        That Carrier did not violate the Agreement, !


                                AWARD

        The claims are denied.;

                    SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NO.'S53.,


                                                              i


                          Roy $.,Rayy Chairm~ar


    D, A, Bo o,, ploys ember , L, , Sl'oans harrier .ember


' San Franciscoa California
 November 9a 19&4