SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0.
553
THE ORDER OF RAILROAD TELEGRAPHERS
SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY (PACIFIC LINES)
ROY R. RAYS Referee.
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
"Claim of the General Committee of The Order of Railroad
Telegraphers on the Southern Pacific (Pacific Lines), that:
CLAIM NO:__I
1. The Carrier violates the parties' Agreement when it '"'
purportedly abolished the agency positions at the
stations and on the dates hereinafter set forth while
the work of the positions remained, transferred this
work to adjacent agencies from where it has been
removed by transferring its performance to employes
not covered by the Telegraphers' Agreement at Los
Angeles' California':
Piruy California, January 10j, 1958; Moorpark,
California February 2'7, 195oj Chino, California,
April 79 158; Camarillo9 California' April 28, 1958;,
North Hollywood, California, May 23 1958; Bryn Mawr,
California, July 9 195$:; Banning' 8alifornia, July
309 1958; San Gabriel California g, August 7, 1958;
Bassett, California, lugust 7' 1978; Saticoy
California, September 2, 1958; Pasadena, California,
September 12, 1958; Carpenteria9 California,* .
September 18 1958; Canoga Park, California,
October 29, 19.58; Ojai, California December,3,, 1958;
. Northridge, California, April 309 1959·
2.. The Carrier shall, because of the violations set forth
above, restore the work to the stations from which the
-'work was improperly removed, and to the employes under
the parties' Agreement entitled to its performance'.
3. The Carrier shallk in addition to the foregoing,
commencing April /y 19599,compensate each 'employe.
1
S 6 A
AWd
adversely affected by virtue of Carrier's violative
act for any loss of wages, plus actual expenses.
CLAIM N0.
2
1. The Carrier violates the parties' Agreement at
Imperial, California, when it purportedly abolished
the agency position at this station while the work
of the position remained which it transferred to
employes not covered by the Telegraphers' Agreement
at El Centro, California. _
The Carrier shall, because of the violation set forth
above, restore the work to the Agreement and to the
employes thereunder entitled to perform it.
The Carrier shall in addition to the foregoing,
commencing April ~,
1959,,
compensate each employe
adversely affected by reason of Carrier's violative
act, for any loss of wages,
plus
actual expenses.
CLAIM N0. 3
1. The Carrier violates the parties' Agreement when it
purportedly abolished the agency positions at the
stations arid on the dates hereinafter set forth while
the work'of the positions remained, transferred this
work to adjacent agencies from where it has been
removed
by
transferring its performance to employes
not covered by the Telegraphers' Agreement at Oakland,
Stockton and/or Modesto, California.
Giant, California March
15, 19549
Pabco, California,
April 10,
1858;
Blola California June 30,
19569
Antioch, California, Lne 27,
1956;
Alameda
California, September 30~
195'79
Vacaville, California,
June 30,
1958;
Melrose, l,alifornia, December 23,
19579
Esparto, California, July
15, 19589
Youn'4vi11e,
California, January 3,
1958
Waterford California,
August
15 1958;
Centerville, California February 10',
1958
Beniciay'California, August 20,
1g~8;
Pinole,
California, February 2'7,
795$;
Galt, California,
September
19, 2958;
Concord, California, February
28,
1958;
Ripon, California, November
14-, 1958;
Pleasanton, California, March 31,
1858.
Livingston, California, April
18,~1958y
closed from
November 30 to May 31 each year.
Westley, May
9, 1958,
closed from November 16 to
May
29,
each year.
AWd 5
2. ,The Carrier shall, because of the violations set forth
above, restore the work to the stations from which it
was improperly removed and to the employes under the
parties' Agreement entitled to perform it.
3.
The Carrier shall in addition to the foregoing,
commencing April
h'
19599
compensate each employe
adversely affected by reason of Carrier's violative
acts for any loss of wages plus actual expenses."
OPINION OF THE BOARD:
The claims in this case involve sixteen stations or agencies
on Carrier's Los Angeles Division and nineteen stations or agencies
on:Carrier's Western Division (including two seasonal agencies at
Livingston and Westley) which were closed between March
195
and
April 1959. In each instance Carrier determined that the need for
the agency had ceased to exist, gave notice to the Employes as
required by Rule 21(d) of the Agreement and received authority from
the*Public Utility Commission of California to close the agency.
The Agencies were reclassified as. non-agency stations and the remaining work was moved to other agencies where.it was assigned to AgentTelegraphersy Telegrapher-Clerks and/or to Clerical Employes.depending on the character of the work.
The Organization contends that upon abolishment of the
agencies the work of the positions remained and that all.of the items
of work transferred-belonged to the persons covered by the Agreement
(Agent-Telegraphers at one-man stations arid Telegrapher-Clerks at
other.stationsy as .an integral part of the work, of such positions).
It charges,-thereforej that the removal of such work to other stations
where it is performed by persons outside the Agreement. constituted a
-3-
· S8A 553
violation of the Agreement in each instance. In Claims 1 and
3
the Organization asks that the work be restored to the stations
from which it was improperly removed and that the employes entitled
to perform,it, and all employes adversely affected be compensated
for loss of wages plus actual expenses. Claim,2 requests that the
work be restored to the Agreement*and that.employes adversely
affected be compensated. In its submission the Organization insists
that it seeks only
a
restoration of the work to the Agreement as
distinguished from a restoration of positions. It says the issue
here is the same as in Cases 2, 3, 4,~6.and 8 of this Docked i.e.s
the transfer of work belonging to Telegraphers to persons outside of
the Agreement.
Carrier takes the position that in each instance the need
for an agency ceased to exist and its action in closing the agencies
and transferring the remaining work was entirely proper and conformed
.to the Agreement and to prevailing practices on the property. Carrier
says that in all except four of these stations the work was removed
to other stations because the Agencies were closed rather than in
connection with the centralization of clerical work and that the
subsequent transfer of the work to. Regional Accounting Stations has
no bearing on the initial closing. Carrier contends that no work
was improperly, removed from the Telegraphers and that where the work
was assigned to clerical employes,it was in accordance with longstanding practice on the property.
~ S~ ~ 553
Au_)~ 5
With reference to the closing of the Agencies, there can be
no doubt of Carrier's right to close an Agency and abolish positions
at it when the need has ceased to exist, subject only to proper
notice to employes and approval of the'Public Utility Commission
Award 388 and other awards of the Third Division. Both of these conditions precedent' were met by Carrier here. .If any further evidence
of Carrier's right to close agencies were needed it could be found in
Paragraph 5 of the October 299 1961 Agreement between the parties,
which reads: "Any reduction in the number of agencies in excess.of
five in any calendar year may be placed in effect only through conference and agreement between the parties." If Carrier could not close
stations and transfer remaining work there would have no purpose in
such a clause.
The question to be resolved'.therefore, is whether Carrier's
transfer of the remaining work at the closed Agencies to other stations
violated the Agreement. It has presented the same arguments which it
made in Cases 29 3y-y 6 and 8, which involved the removal of clerical
work from open stations to centrally located stations. In.this connection it should be noted that in only four of the stations involved
in these claims was work transferred to central stations while the .
stations were still'operating (Alameda, Melrose, Pabco for which.
clerical work has been regionalized at Oakland in 1938 and Westley -
a seasonal agency for which billing had been centralized at Tracy
about 1948). All other stations were closed.'and the remaining work
transferred to adjacent stations prior to regionalizing. Subsequently
.-.
! 56A553
fwd 5
some of the work was taken from these adjacent stations and regionalized at Central Agencies. It is clear, therefore, that for the
most part the initial removal of the work was due to the fact that
the stations were closed becausd of lack of need rather than for the
purpose of centralizing the work. But the Organization insists that
the reason for the transfer is immaterial if the work belongs as~it
claims to the Telegraphers. With that we would agree. In either case
the Organization has the burden of showing that work belonging
exclusively to Telegraphers has been assigned to persons outside of
the Agreement.
In our judgment. the Organization has failed to establish any
exclusive right to the work in question: Its only claim to the work
is based upon the fact that it was being performed by Telegraphers at
the particular stations. This is not sufficient. The words of,
Referee Carter in Award
4392
are persuasive here: "The claim of the
Telegraphers' Organization to this work arises out of the fact that it
formerly belonged to the agent assigned to this one-man station. As
such agent, the work was properly assigned to him. No part of the
work here in question could be said to belong to a Telegrapher because
of the inherent nature of the work. Where, therefore, a competent
authority authorized'the discontinuing of all station positions and
i
a closing of the, station, the work herein, performed out of which this
dispute arises, cannot properly be classified as Telegraphers' work
exclusively. Unless it could be so classified, we fail to see any
basis by which the senior furloughed or extra Telegrapher not working
could maintain a claim for a wage loss., With all station positions
-6..
S6A 553
Awd 5
properly abolished and no work remaining belonging exclusively to
Telegraphers, the only basis~for a claim that the work belonged to
Telegraphers is gone."
In view of the Organization's reliance upon the same argument
as in the "regionalization cases"y we call attention to the long
practice on the property of transferring clerical work from stations
manned by Telegraphers to other stations where it was centralized. We
held in those cases that the Organization had failed to establish any
exclusive right to the work. The present case is even stronger on its
facts. No'work was taken from existing stations or positions. For the
reason stated above, as well as those expressed in Award No, 2, we hold
that Carrier's action in closing the stations-and transferring the
remaining work to other stations did not contravene the Agreement,
FINDING
That Carrier did not violate the Agreement,
AWARD
The claims are denied.
SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0.
553
Roy R. 'Ray, Chairman
D. A. Bobo, Employe Member ' -L, .W. Sloan, C rrier Mem er
San Francisco, California
November 99 1964
_7_