Page images

tiated, agreement could not be reached on rates of pay, and it was agreed that rates of pay would be submitted to arbitration. In connection with rates for the three ditcher engineers, Management proposed that they all be $200.00 per month and the organization proposed that the rates then in effect be continued. During the arbitration proceedings, the Carrier agreed to continue the present rates of this particular class and the question was withdrawn from arbitration. We, therefore, have three regularly assigned ditcher engineers, operating identical machines, and two rates of pay, that is, $190.40 and $245.40.

The temporary position filled by L. J. Corsall, which is the subject of this claim, was a new position. He was not filling the position of a regularly assigned ditcher engineer. The new position was created at rate of $190.40, which rate is exactly the same as the rate of a regularly assigned engineer, operating an identical machine.

Rule No. 19 provides that an employe assigned to a higher rated position shall receive the higher rate. This employe was not assigned to a higher rated position. He was assigned to a new position. While there is no rule in the agreement which provides for a method of arriving at rates for new positions, the rate for this position is the same as the rate of an identical position, which is subject to the agreement.

The Carrier contends the new position created in this case was properly established at rate of $190.40, a negotiated and agreed to rate for a regularly assigned ditcher engineer on an identical machine in the same seniority district, and respectfully requests claim be denied.

OPINION OF BOARD: The agreement provides two rates for Ditcher Engineers; one rate is $190.40 a month, the other is $245.40 a month. The facts disclose that the engineer's position on Ditcher No. 3 carries the higher rate of $245.40. Claimant was assigned to the position of engineer on Ditcher No. 3. It follows that Claimant is entitled to the higher rate.

If, as contended by the Carrier, the negotiated rates were intended to apply to individuals and not to positions, we believe the individual's name would appear.

FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving the parties to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon, and upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:

That the Carrier and the Employe involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;

That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

That the Claimant is entitled to the rate of $245.40 a month.


Claim (a) sustained; Claim (b) sustained.


By Order of Third Division

ATTEST: H. A. Johnson


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 24th day of September, 1943.

[graphic][ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »