T
出
​Trani parti
ра
HI
INDEX-DIGEST
OF
DECISIONS OF UNITED STATES RAIL-
ROAD LABOR BOARD
TO MAY 1, 1922
ABILENE & SOUTHERN RAILWAY.
Petition of Abilene & Southern Railway for rehearing on Decision 2. De-
nied. A&S. Decision No. 15.
·
ABOLISHING POSITIONS. See "Positions—Abolishing.”
ABOLISHING TERMINALS. See "Terminals-Changing or Abolish-
ing."
ABROGATION OF NATIONAL AGREEMENTS, ORDERS, ETC.,
OF RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION. See "Decision 119 and
Addenda and Interpretations thereto."
ABSORPTION OF OVERTIME BY SUSPENSION OF REGULAR
WORK. See "Overtime."
ACETYLENE TORCH-USE OF.
Does Rule 55 of Addendum 3 to Decision 222 permit others than mechanics,
who are members of the crew assigned to the scrapping of equipment referred
to in this rule, to use acetylene cutting torch in connection with the work?
Case withdrawn by employees and file closed. B&O-ShopCrafts. Decision
No. 796.
ACTS OF PROVIDENCE. Time lost due to
1. Snow storms and severe weather conditions, etc.
Claim for pay under monthly guarantee for 10 day period during which line
was blocked account of snow; bulletin having been posted discontinuing all
regular passenger service during such period. Denied-service discontinued by
proper notification. D&SL-EFCT. Decision No. 26.
Claim for pay for 10 day period during which held for service but not
used account snow blockade. Sustained. D&SL-EFCT. Decision No. 27.
Where service was annulled in yard due to snow blockade, claim is made for
time on certain dates during such period on which it is claimed switching was
performed by hostlers and yardmasters. Denied. Emergency work. D&SL-
EFCT. Decision No. 52.
ADVERTISING RUNS. See "Vacancies-Bulletining and Filling."
AGENTS.
Increases granted by Labor Board to-See "Art. V-Decisions 2 and 5."
Express-See "Express Employees.
Supervisory-Classification of-See "Classification of Positions."
1. Baggage and ticket.
2. Non-telegraph.
1. Baggage and ticket.
Question whether certain baggage and express agents are employees of
railroad company and governed by provisions of Clerks' National Agreement,
or employees of Express Company and governed by Express Employees'
Agreement, or employees of both and governed by both agreements. Decided
1
that such men are employees of Express Company and should be governed
by Sup. 19 to G. O. 27, Express Employees' National Agreement, and De-
cision 3 of Labor Board. LA&SL-Clerks. Decision No. 86.
Question as to whether employees designated as baggage agent, assistant
baggage agent, and assistant ticket agent, are entitled to increase of 13c per
hour under Sections 2 and 4 of Decision 2, or to 10c per hour under Sec. 1,
Art. V. Decision-Employees in question shall be increased 13c per hour
under Sections 2 and 4, Art. II, Decision 2. TM-Clks. Decision No. 135.
2. Non-telegraph.
Question as to whether positions of non-telegraph agents at certain points
should be increased under Section 1 or Section 2 of Art. V, of Decision 2.
Decision-Positions in question are small non-telegraph stations as defined
in Addendum 2 to Sup. 13 to G. O. 27 and shall be increased five cents per hour
under Sec. 2 of Art, V of Decision 2. StLSF-Telgrs. Decision No. 131.
AGREEMENTS: (See also "Rules and Working Conditions-Requests
for")
1. Changes in and termination of
2. Duration of
3. Caption of
4. Scope of
5. Non-compliance with provisions of
1. Changes in and termination of.
Where road, party to Decision 2, served thirty days advanced notice that
effective Feb. 1, 1921, pay of all employees would be reduced by one-half of
sum of all increases effective since December 31, 1917, due to financial inability
of road to pay present wages, question as to right of road to make such re-
ductions without authority of Labor Board. Decision-Board without juris-
diction until Sec. 301 of Transportation Act has been complied with and con-
ference held between parties concerned as to whether present wages are just
and reasonable. AB&A--EFCT-Clks-SC-Tels-MofW-Disprs. Decision
No. 89.
Where road, party to Decision 2, served thirty days advanced notice that
on Feb. 1, 1921, pay of all employees would be reduced to basis in effect on
April 30, 1920, due to financial inability of road to pay present wages, and on
Feb. 1, actually put such reduced rates into effect, question as to right of road
to make such reduction without authority of Labor Board. Decision-Board
without jurisdiction until Sec. 301 of Transportation Act has been complied
with and conference held between parties concerned as to whether present
wages are just and reasonable, or if conference is refused Board will proceed
under Sec. 313 of the Act. M&NA-EFCT-Disprs-SC-Tels. Decision
No. 90.
Where road, party to Decision 2 of Labor Board, arbitrarily reduced wages,
made deductions in earnings, and altered working conditions of certain classes
of employees, without first seeking conference with representatives of employees
interested, or obtaining consent of said employees, question as to whether
Decision 2 was violated by road concerned. Decision-Carrier violated Decision
2 of Labor Board and acted in conflict with provisions of Transportation Act.
Erie-MofW-Disprs. Decision No. 91.
Question whether Decision 119 affects the agreements, supplements, orders,
etc., executed with or issued by Railroad Administration covering engineers,
firemen, conductors, trainmen and yardmen; employees contending that no dis-
pute regarding these matters was before the Board at time Decision 119 was
rendered. Decision-Decision 119 does not terminate existing agreements
of train, engine and yard employees, as the Labor Board did not, nor could
it under provision of Transportation Act, include in its Decision 119 any
matter which was not before it as a dispute. Changes, however, may be
made after required notice either by agreement of the parties or by decision
of Board after conference and proper reference in accord with Transportation
Act. CI&L-FEC-AA-CGW-TC. Int. 2 to Decision No. 119.
!
2
Question whether Decision 119 terminates, July 1, 1921, the agreement of
the Order of Railroad Telegraphers with the carriers included in that decision;
employees contending that said decision in no wise affects the agreements,
supplements, orders, etc., of R.R. Administration for reason that no dispute
regarding these matters, involving said organization, was before the Board
at time Decision 119 was rendered. Decision-Employees sustained; changes,
however, in such agreements may be made after required notice either by
agreement of parties or by decision of Board after conference and proper
reference in accord with Transportation Act-this decision not to interfere
with agreements reached nor with negotiations proceeding after proper notice.
Int. 4 to Decision No. 119.
Question as to whether management of carrier has complied with rule in
agreement which provides "This agreement shall continue in force until thirty
days' notice in writing has been given by either party to the other requesting
a change in same;" employees contending that rule had not been strictly com-
plied with because carrier had not furnished them with copy of the revised
rules proposed. Decision-Carrier has complied with provisions of agreement
referred to, and therefore the employees' representatives should confer with
representatives of carrier at time to be designated by said carrier for purpose
of considering changes desired. If employees refuse to enter into negotia-
tions, it will be necessary for Board, under Transportation Act, to accept the
ex-parte submission of carrier and render decision thereon. P&R-AFRRW.
Decision No. 292.
Question (a) what rules governing working conditions shall be incorpo-
rated in agreement between the Toledo & Ohio Central Railway and the
American Federation of Railroad Workers, governing carmen and black-
smiths, and (b) what rules shall be incorporated in agreement between the
Zanesville & Western Railway and the American Federation of Railroad
Workers, governing all of the so-called shopcrafts? Decision-(a) Rules
agreed upon in conference pursuant to issuance of Decision 119, affecting
blacksmiths and carmen, shall be incorporated in agreement governing these
classes of employees. With reference to rules upon which no agreement could
be reached, which were submitted to the Labor Board for decision, Board
decides that rules as shown in Decision 222 and Addenda thereto, correspond-
ing to the rules in alspute, shall be incorporated into the agreement insofar
as the said rules pertain to these crafts. (b) Rules agreed upon in conference
pursuant to issuance of Decision 119, affecting all shop crafts on the Zanes-
ville & Western, shall be incorporated in agreement covering these classes of
employees. With reference to the rules upon which no agreement could be
reached, the Board decides that the rules as shown in Decision 222 and
Addenda thereto, corresponding to the rules in dispute, shall be incorporated
into the agreement between the parties to this dispute. T&OC_Z&W—AF
RRW. Decision No. 892.
Certain agencies which were included in telegraphers' agreement were
reclassified as supervisory agents by carrier and certain changes made in
their wages and working conditions with the understanding that under the
designation of supervisory agents they would not be subject to the provisions
of the telegraphers' agreement. The agreement referred to contains a pro-
vision that it shall remain in effect until 30 days' notice has been given by
either party to the other party requesting a change in same, and employees
are contending that as carrier failed to serve the 30 days' notice or hold
conference with the employees before changing the classification of the
agents referred to it violated the provisions of their agreement and they,
therefore, request that rates of pay and working conditions of the agents
at the stations in question as established by the agreement be restored, and
the employees affected reimbursed for monetary loss sustained. Carrier takes
position that growth of business at the stations in question justified the
rearrangement of station forces and that duties and responsibilities of the
former agents were changed sufficiently to warrant designating them as
supervisory agents; that supervisory agents do not come within the scope of the
Transportation Act or the jurisdiction of the Labor Board and that the teleg-
raphers' committee had no right to attempt to represent them.
Decision-
3
Board states that the question presented to it in this dispute is whether or not
the action of the carrier was in violation of the terms of the agreement between
the carrier and its employees in telegraph service, and it decides that under the
rule of the agreement the agents at the stations named should not have been ex-
cluded from the provisions thereof until 30 days notice had been served
upon the representatives of the employees in telegraph service, requesting
that the change be made, or until conference had been held with the employees'
committee, or until handled in the manner provided in the Transportation
Act. The Board does not undertake to pass on whether or not these agents
are supervisory, but merely that, in view of said positions having been in-
cluded in the agreement between the employees and the carrier, they should
not have been excluded therefrom unless or until the provisions of the agree-
ment and the Transportation Act have been complied with. GCL-Tel. De-
cision No. 930.
2. Duration of.
Question as to proper rule to be adopted covering "duration of agreement."
Board decides Conductors' rule is just and reasonable and should be adopted by
Trainmen. N&W-Trainmen. Decision No. 64.
3. Caption of.
Question whether agreement covering rules and working conditions should
be made directly with the employees or with an organization representing
the employees; carrier conceding that the Brotherhood of Railway & Steamship
Clerks represent a majority of that class of its employees, but declining to
permit the caption of the proposed agreement to show that the employees cov-
ered were represented by said brotherhood. Decision-It is clear under De-
cision 119 that said organization has right to make agreement for said entire
class of employees, both members and non-members of said organization,
and it is proper that caption be so drawn as to show for whom and by whom
the agreement is made. (See decision for caption to be used.) MK&T-
MK&TofTex-WF&NW-Clerks. Decision No. 173.
Dispute as to caption to be shown in new agreement. Board cites in de-
cision caption to be used. MK&T-SC. Decision No. 205.
4. Scope of.
Question as to whether shop employees of the Louisiana Southern Railway
Company should be included in agreement covering rules and working con-
ditions for the Gulf Coast Lines. Decision-From evidence submitted, Board
decides that the Louisiana Southern Railway Company is not a part of the
Gulf Coast Lines, and that the carrier is within its rights in insisting that
the shop employees of the Louisiana Southern Railway Company be covered
by a separate agreement. Dissenting opinion filed by Board Member Wharton,
who takes the position: (a) The Louisiana Southern Railway is operated
by the Gulf Coast Lines, under an operating contract, and the term "Gulf
Coast Lines" has always been understood to apply to certain carriers, including
the Louisiana Southern Railway Company, and the officers of the Gulf Coast
Lines are likewise the officers of the Louisiana Southern Railway Company.
(b) Carrier's reason for desiring the Louisiana Southern omitted from the
Gulf Coast Lines' agreement is apparently that they did not feel that rules
and working conditions applicable to the other lines should be imposed upon
the Louisiana Southern, and that to do so would impose a financial burden
that would be difficult, if not impossible, to carry. An analysis of the rules
submitted to the Board by the carrier (ex parte) on June 30, 1921, which
carrier requested to be made applicable to the Louisiana Southern, developed
that said rules correspond closely to the so-called national agreement pro-
mulgated by the Railroad Administration, and are, as a whole, much more
favorable to the employees than the rules that have been promulgated by the
Board in its Decision No. 222, and are also more favorable to the employees
than the rules proposed by the carrier for the other lines it operates. GCL-
ShCrfts. Decision No. 833.
4
Question as to whether certain agency, classified by the carrier as super-
visory agency, shall be included within the scope of the telegraphers' agree-
ment. Decision-It is admitted by the employees that in negotiations in
November, 1919, supervisory agents were not included in the agreement, and
it further appears that under date of August 9, 1920, the employees advised
the carrier of their willingness to consider this station a supervisory agency
with the understanding that it would remain in the agreement as such. The
Board, therefore, decides that the station in question shall not be included
within the scope of the agreement and the claim of employees is denied.
AT&SF-Telgrs. Decision No. 873.
Dispute regarding inclusion of telegraph office at certain point in agree-
ment between carrier and employees in telegraph service. No facts given.
Case withdrawn and file closed. T&BV-Tel. Decision No. 910.
5. Non-compliance With Provisions of.
Certain agencies which were included in telegraphers' agreement were
reclassified as supervisory agents by carrier and certain changes made in their
wages and working conditions with the understanding that under the designa-
tion of supervisory agents they would not be subject to the provisions of
the telegraphers' agreement. The agreement referred to contains a provision
that it shall remain in effect until 30 days notice has been given by either
party to the other party requesting a change in same, and employees` are
contending that as carrier failed to serve the 30 days notice or hold conference
with the employees before changing the classification of the agents referred
to it violated the provisions of their agreement and they, therefore, re-
quest that rates of pay and working conditions of the agents at the sta-
tions in question as established by the agreement be restored and the em-
ployees affected reimbursed for monetary loss sustained. Carrier takes posi-
tion that growth of business at the stations in question justified the rearrange-
ment of station forces and that duties and responsibilities of the former
agents were changed sufficiently to warrant designating them as supervisory
agents; that supervisory agents do not come within the scope of the Trans-
portation Act or the jurisdiction of the Labor Board and that the teleg-
raphers' committee had no right to attempt to represent them. Decision-
Board states that the question presented to it in this dispute is whether or not
the action of the carrier was in violation of the terms of the agreement be-
tween the carrier and its employees in telegraph service, and it is decided that
under the rule of the agreement the agents at the stations named should not
have been excluded from the provisions thereof until 30 days notice had been
served upon the representatives of the employees in telegraph service, re-
questing that the change be made, or until conference had been held with the
employees' committee, or until handled in the manner provided in the Trans-
portation Act. The Board does not undertake to pass on whether or not
these agents are supervisory, but merely that in view of said positions having
been included in the agreement between the employees and the carrier, they
should not have been excluded therefrom unless or until the provisions of
the agreement and the Transportation Act have been complied with. GCL-
Tel. Decision No. 930.
AGREEMENTS-Joint-right to negotiate-See "Representation Rights."
AGREEMENTS, ORDERS, ETC., of R. R. ADMINISTRATION—
Abrogation of-See "Decision 119 and Interpretations thereto."
Application of. See "Railroad Administration-Rulings, Orders, etc., of."
ALTON & SOUTHERN RAILROAD.
Request for application of Decision 2 to employees on Alton & Southern
Railroad. Granted. Add. 1 to Decision No. 2.
5
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF RAILROAD WORKERS.
Where certain employees coming under the provisions of National Shop
Agreement are members of the American Federation of Railroad Workers
and desire that organization to handle their grievance matters, question as
to whether under Rule 35 of the Shop Agreement, that organization not being
a party to said agreement, has the right to handle matters coming under the
Shop Agreement, and its committee be recognized as "the duly authorized
local committee" referred to in Rule 35 of said agreement. Employees sus-
tained. B&M-AFofRRW. Decision No. 70.
AMERICAN RAILWAY EXPRESS EMPLOYEES-See "EXPRESS
EMPLOYEES."
AMERICAN REFRIGERATOR TRANSIT COMPANY.
Question as to whether Labor Board has jurisdiction over the American
Refrigerator Transit Company. Decision-Board decides that this company is
not a common carrier, that it does not come within the provisions of the Trans-
portation Act, and Board has no jurisdiction of dispute. ART Co.-SC-
Clerks. Decision No. 211.
ANALOGOUS SERVICE.
Question as to increase under Decision 2 to be applied to Labur foremen, in
shops and enginehouses, whose duties consist of supervising engine wipers,
laborers, tool checkers, fire tenders, and like positions. Decision-Analogous
service (referred to in Article XII, Decision 2) as applied to supervisory
forces, entitled the supervisors in question to a monthly increase of not less than
204 hours times 13c, or $26.52 per month, which amount represents the minimum
monthly increase accruing to any class of supervisory forces specifically re-
ferred to and coming under Dec. 2. Int. 21 to Decision No. 2.
ANNULMENT OF RUNS.
Claim for pay under monthly guarantee for ten-day period during which
line was blocked account of snow; bulletin having been posted discontinuing
all regular passenger service during such period. Denied-service discontinued
by proper notification. D&SL-EFCT. Decision No. 26.
APPLICATION FOR HEARING DISMISSED.
Application for hearing made after employees had left the service of
the carriers. Decision-dismissed, as applicants were not adopting every
available means to avoid interruption to the operation of the carriers, and
no showing made that applicants were employees of any carrier. Edw. A.
McHugh & others. Decision No. 1.
APPLICATION OF DECISION 2. See "Decision 2—Application of."
APPLICATION OF DECISION 3.
APPLICATION OF DECISION 119.
APPLICATION OF DECISION 147.
See "Decision 3-Application of."
See "Decision 119—Application of.”
See "Decision 147-Application of."
APPLICATION OF DECISION 222. See “Decision 222—Application of.”
APPLICATION OF DECISION 721. See "Decision 721-Application of."
ARBITRARIES AND SPECIAL ALLOWANCES.
1. Application of Decision 2 to
2. Preparatory and Final Time
3. Terminal Switching
4. Terminal Delay
5. Terminal work other than switching
6. Terminal Mileage.
6
1. Application of Decision 2 to.
Question as to how Dec. 2 shall be applied to existing rate allowed engi-
neers on certain branch lines for their services as conductors plus amounts
earned as engineers. Decision—Question relates to increasing arbitrary rates
and special allowances which are closely interwoven with certain rules and
which rules will be given consideration by Board when question of rules is
taken up for decision-L&N-E&F. Int. 9 to Decision No. 2.
Question as to how Dec. 2 shall be applied to existing rule providing
arbitrary allowance to engineers and firemen for handling engines with or
without trains, between shops and passenger stations at certain points. De-
cision-Question relates to increasing arbitrary rates and special allowances
which are closely interwoven with certain rules and which rules will be
given consideration by Board when question is taken up for decision. L&N-
E&F. Int. 9 to Decision No. 2.
Question as to how Dec. 2 shall be applied to rates for engineers and
firemen in yard and road service, also hostlers and hostler helpers, when at-
tending court. Decision-Question relates to increasing arbitrary rates and
special allowances which are closely interwoven with certain rules and which
rules will be given consideration by Board when question of rules is taken up
for decision. L&N-EF. Int. 9. SAL-EF. Int. 12 to Decision No. 2.
Question as to how Dec. 2 shall be applied to existing rule covering minimum
allowance for engineers and firemen when not used in other service during
calendar day on which deadhead trips are made. Decision-Question relates to
increasing arbitrary rates and special allowances which are closely interwoven
with certain rules and which rules will be given consideration by Board when
question of rules is taken up for decision. L&N-EF. Int. 9 to Decision No. 2.
2. Preparatory and Final Time.
Request for additional compensation under Rule providing for payment of
time after engine is placed on designated track at terminal to allow for in-
spection of engine and making reports. Decided no change shall be made at
this time. NYC-EF. Decision No. 11.
3. Terminal Switching.
Request for new method of computing compensation when required to do
switching at final terminal. Decided no change shall be made at this time.
NYC-EF. Decision No. 11.
Prior to G. O. 27 payments for overtime, terminal delay and switching at
terminals were computed on basis of one-eighth of trip rate, or mileage of trip.
Under Sup. 16 trip basis was abolished but more favorable overtime basis re-
tained. Under Sup. 25 this more favorable overtime basis was abolished and
overtime was computed at three-sixteenths of mileage rate for one hundred
miles, but for terminal delay and switching at terminals before overtime begins,
the rate on former basis of one-eighth of trip mileage being higher was retained.
In the application of decision 2 the new rate based on one hundred miles, being
in excess of former rate, was established for such payments. Employees con-
tend these arbitrary payments should continue to be applied on basis of the mile-
age of trip rather than basic day of one hundred miles. Denied. RF&P_CT.
Decision No. 56.
4. Terminal Delay.
Prior to G. O. 27 payments for overtime, terminal delay and switching at
terminals were computed on basis of one-eighth of trip rate, or mileage of trip.
Under Sup. 16 trip basis was abolished but more favorable overtime basis re-
tained. Under Sup. 25 this more favorable overtime basis was abolished and
overtime was computed at three-sixteenths of mileage rate for one hundred
miles, but for terminal delay and switching at terminals before overtime begins,
the rate on former basis of one-eighth of trip mileage being higher was retained.
In the application of decision 2 the new rate based on one hundred miles, being
in excess of former rate, was established for such payments. Employees con-
tend these arbitrary payments should continue to be applied on basis of the mile-
7
age of trip rather than basic day of one hundred miles. Denied. RF&P-CT.
Decision No. 56.
Where, under schedule rules, initial and final terminal delay has been paid
for independently, question as to proper application of pro rata and time and
one-half basis to such special payments. Board sets out in decision rules which
it considers just and reasonable. T&P-EF. Decision No. 55.
5. Terminal work other than switching.
Request for additional compensation for handling passenger equipment trains
between certain points. Decided no change shall be made at this time. NYC
(west)-EF. Decision No. 11.
6. Terminal Mileage.
Dispute in regard to payment of terminal mileage on milk trains which
are operated as first-class trains. Prior to issuance of Supplement 24 to
G. O. 27, engineers and firemen in milk-train service were allowed terminal
mileage at terminals and turnaround points for disposing of train and hostling
their engines in accordance with certain schedule rules. It is the contention
of the employees that mileage allowed for this service was not an arbitrary
allowance, as the mileage was added to the mileage on the run, thereby extend-
ing the time when overtime would accrue; therefore, it would in no way
cause double payment of the time, and that Supplement 24 and interpretation
thereto did not discontinue this mileage allowance. Carrier takes position that
these trains are classified as freight trains and should take freight-train con-
ditions; that no terminal allowances should be made, as the point in question
is not initial or final terminal of the trains involved; that all arbitrary allow-
ances at other than initial or final terminals were eliminated by Supplement 24,
and that the men are now being paid strictly in accordance with schedule
conditions. Decision-Article IV, on which employees base their claim, refers
to passenger service only. Under the provisions of the schedule (Article V)
engineers and firemen employed on milk trains receive freight service rates.
Therefore, the claim is not justified and is denied. NYO&W-E&F. De-
cision No. 482.
ASH-PIT MEN.
Claim that certain employees arc performing the same class of work as
cinder-pit men and should be so classified and rated. Decision-Board decides
(a) at points where there is a sufficient amount of such work to occupy the
time of one or more men, such men (or man) shall be paid the rate and re-
ceive the overtime conditions established for ash-pit men; (b) this decision
shall be effective November 1, 1921; (c) decision not to be construed to mean
that section laborers or other laborers employed in or around shops or yards,
who are required among their other duties to remove cinders from tracks,
shall come under its provisions; (d) decision is based on particular facts in
this case.
NC&StL-MofW. Decision No. 300.
ASSIGNMENT OF CREWS.
Request that freight brakemen, instead of passenger brakemen, be assigned
to certain "mixed" branch line trains, which in effect is request for assignment
of two brakemen, instead of one as at present. Board decides trains in ques-
tion having been manned by one conductor and one flagman, both qualified pas-
senger men, since 1904, request for change is not now warranted. N&W-
Trainmen. Decision No. 78.
Where rule provides that when a sufficient number of men have been assigned
to certain pool runs, no emergency trainmen will be put on, but trainmen already
assigned, accumulated at other end of run, will be deadheaded at company's ex-
pense when needed; or if emergency arises necessitating use of emergency train-
men, and layover of the assigned trainmen at terminals exceeds eighteen hours,
they will either be deadheaded or paid overtime for such layover, claim is made
by certain conductors for overtime for time so held, alleging use of emergency
crews in violation of the rules. Board without jurisdiction, matter occurring
before passage of Transportation Act. N&W-C(a) and (b). Decision No. 83.
8
ASSIGNMENTS.
1. Pay when not used on.
2. Change in.
3. Pay when temporarily or permanently assigned to higher-rated positions.
1. Pay When Not Used On.
Claim for pay for 10 day period during which held for service but not used
account snow blockade. Sustained. D&SL-EFCT. Decision No. 27.
Claim for pay under monthly guarantee for 10 day period during which line
was blocked account of snow; bulletin having been posted discontinuing all reg
ular passenger service during such period. Denied. Service discontinued by
proper notification. D&SL-EFCT. Decision No. 26.
Where service was annulled in yard due to snow blockade, claim is made for
time on certain dates during such period on which it is claimed switching was
performed by hostlers and yardmasters. Denied-Emergency work. D&SL—
EFCT. Decision No. 52.
Dispute in regard to alleged violation of Rules 32 and 33 of the National
Agreement. No facts given. Decision-Board understands that subsequent
to filing this dispute an agreement has been negotiated and consummated and
that further negotiations will be conducted with a view to disposing of this
dispute. In view of this fact the case is considered closed without prejudice
to the right of either party in making further submission in connection there-
with if it so desires. PullmanCo-ShopCrafts. Decision No. 435.
2. Change In.
At a certain outlying point where several switch engines used in mine
service layover there were employed for several years prior to October, 1920,
one boilermaker, one hostler, one hostler helper, two engine watchmen, two
fire cleaners, and one supply man. On or about October 1, 1920, carrier posted
five-day notice and laid off the boilermaker, who was the only mechanic
employed at the point in question. At the expiration of the notice another
boilermaker was brought from another division and assigned as a working
foreman, and he performs all of the mechanic's work previously done by the
boilermaker in question, and in addition thereto exercises supervision over
other employees at this point. Employees contend that Rules 18 and 27 of
the National Agreement were violated and request that the boilermaker laid
off be returned to his job and allowed pay for time lost, while the carrier
contends that it was entirely within its rights in assigning a working foreman
under the provisions of Rule 32. Decision-While the Board recognizes the
right of the carrier to appoint employees of its own selection to important
supervisory positions, it does not feel that it was the intent of the rules, as
incorporated in the National Agreement, to permit the carrier to displace
employees at small outlying points by the exercise of this privilege without
good and sufficient reasons, and decides in this particular dispute that the
carrier was not justified in displacing this boilermaker, the only mechanic
employed at the point in question, and that he should be reinstated to his
former position with seniority rights unimpaired; but in view of his declina-
tion of employment at another point he shall only be reimbursed to the extent
that he would have suffered a wage loss, if any, on the basis of what he would
have earned in the position offered, as compared with what he would have
earned on his regular position. MP-ShopCrafts. Decision No. 409.
Account of illness of employee assigned to third trick position at certain
point, telegrapher on second trick, who was regularly assigned to service from
4 p. m. to midnight, was required to work third-trick position instead of his
own for period of five days and paid therefor at the straight time rate of the
third-trick position. Claim is made for compensation at rate of time and
one-half for service performed on third-trick position. Decision—Claim de-
nied. SP-Tel. Decision No. 376.
9
At a third-trick point, due to illness of second-trick operator and in-
ability to secure relief man, it became necessary to temporarily change the
assigned hours (8 a. m. to 4 p. m.) of first-trick operator to from 3 p. m. to
midnight, and employees are contending that under paragraph (d), Art. III,
of schedule, providing that employees will not be required to suspend work
during regular hours to absorb overtime, this operator is entitled to pay for
regular assignment and in addition to compensation under overtime-and-call
rule for service performed outside of regular assignment. Decision-Claim
denied. LA&SL-Telgrs. Decision No. 267.
Where starting time of assignment of two employees was changed from
12 midnight to 1:30 a. m., claim is made by employees that such change was
in violation of Rule 53 of the National Agreement, which provides that where
three consecutive shifts are worked no shift will have a starting time after
12 o'clock midnight and before 5 a. m. Carrier takes position that this rule
applies to employees who work in three-shift positions; that the employees
referred to are not so assigned, and that, therefore, the action of the carrier
in changing the assignment was not in violation of said rule. Decision-
Evidence shows that platform men at the station named are not assigned to
three-shift positions as referred to in Rule 53, but that the service performed
by said employees is continuous throughout the 24-hour period, there being
from one to three platform men on duty at all times. Position of the em-
ployees sustained. ARE-Clks. Decision No. 881.
3. Pay when Temporarily or Permanently Assigned to Higher Rated
Positions.
Question as to proper rate of compensation for clerk who, after completing
his regular assignment from 4 p. m. to midnight, was required to work from
midnight to 8 a. m. on another position carrying a higher rate of pay than his
regular assignment. Employee was allowed time and one-half overtime based
on straight-time rate of his own position, but is contending for overtime on
basis of rate of position which he was filling. Decision-Claim denied. N&W
-Clerks. Decision No. 278.
Where signal department helper was assigned temporarily for a period
of several weeks to fill position of assistant signal maintainer, after which
time he was permanently continued in said position, question arises as to rate
of pay applicable during the temporary assignment. Employee contends that
under Section 23, Article II, of the agreement he should receive the rate of
the position, while the carrier contends he should be paid according to his
experience in line with Section 2, Article V, of the same agreement.
De-
cision-Based upon its construction of the rules referred to the Board decides
that a signal department helper assigned temporarily to fill position of assistant
signal maintainer should have received the same rate of pay allowed the em-
ployee permanently assigned to the position, but that when permanent assign-
ment was made the rate established by Section 2, Article V, of the agreement
should apply. NYC-Sig. Decision No. 356.
BACK PAY. (Computation of-under Decision 2. See also "Sec. 5, Art.
XIII-Dec. 2." See "Int. No. 19 to Dec. 2.")
Where yard conductor performing work train service during portion of his
yard day made claim for highest rate (work train) for days on which the two
classes of service was required and which claim as presented was allowed, claim
is now made for back pay to January, 1915, for all occasions on which such com-
bination service was performed and for which only yard rates had been paid.
Board without jurisdiction-matter having occurred before passage of Trans-
portation Act. N&W-Trainmen. Decision No. 79.
Claim that provisions of Decision 2 apply to employees who voluntarily left
the railroad's service prior to June 12th and subsequent to July 19, 1920. De-
cision-Interpretation 19 to Dec. 2 governs. C&NW-REDept.AFofL. De-
cision No. 110.
10
Claim for back pay for certain employees who were laid off subsequent to
May 1, 1920, account of close of season requiring operation of heating plants.
Decision See Item 2 of Decision incorporated in Interpretation 19 to Dec. 2-
employees in question should be allowed back pay accordingly. T.R.R.Assn.of
St.L-IUofS&OE. Decision No. 202.
Question as to effective date of increases granted by Fort Smith & Western
Ry.-road contending that it was entitled to thirty days' notice in accordance
with its agreement, before applying the increase. Decision-Road sustained,
and claim of employees for back pay to May 1st denied. FS&W-SC. De-
cision No. 181.
Where certain signal maintainers, classified and paid by carrier under
Supplement 4 as electrical workers, second class, were, upon claim being made
by employees that such men were performing work of a composite mechanic
and matter submitted to Railroad Administration, by decision of the Admin-
istration re-rated and paid as electrical workers, first class, up to the date
of termination of Federal control, after which time these employees were
again classified as second-class electrical workers, question now arises as to
rate to be used in applying increase under Decision 2 to said employees.
Decision-Increase provided in Decision 2 shall be applied to the rates estab-
lished by decision of Railroad Administration referred to and back pay
allowed accordingly. MP-Sig. Decision No. 252.
Claim for back pay under provisions of Sec. 1, Art. XIII, Decision 2, for
employee dismissed from service June 26, 1920. Decision Subsequent to
submission of this case, the Board issued Int. 19 to Decision 2, Section 5
of which decides the question at issue. SP&S-C&T. Decision No. 322.
Claim for back pay under Decision 2 for employee who resigned voluntarily
from one department and accepted service in another department of same
carrier. Decision-Claim denied. DL&W-MofW. Decision No. 351.
Question as to whether employees who were in service of carrier May 1,
1920, and remained therein up to and including 12:01 a. m. July 20, 1920;
and employees who entered the service subsequent to May 1, 1920, and re-
mained therein up. to and including 12:01 a. m. July 20, 1920, are entitled to
increases established by Decision 2 for the time so served. Decision-Yes, see
Interpretation 19 to Decision 2. GTRy-ShopCrafts: Decision No. 421.
Request for reinstatement of clerk dismissed from service—no facts given.
Decision-Board decides that request for reinstatement is denied, but orders
that back pay due under Decision 2 shall be paid the employee involved for
the period May 1, 1920, to July 16, 1920, in accordance with Section 5 of Inter-
pretation 19 to Decision 2. PM-Clerks. Decision No. 533.
Claim of clerk for back pay under Decision 3 of the Labor Board. Case
withdrawn by employees and file closed. ARECo-Clerks. Decision No. 614.
Claim of certain timekeepers for back pay from March 1, 1920, to January
1, 1921, account reclassification of their positions from a monthly to a daily
basis. These positions were originally classed as "personal office force" and
excepted from the provisions of the clerk's national agreement, but in January,
1921, the carrier, after conference with the clerks' committee, agreed to change
the classification and include the positions within the scope of the agreement.
Carrier contends that in the conference with the committee there was no
request for making the change in classification and basis of pay retroactive;
that there is no justification for the employees' claim, since the change was
made at their request in January, 1921, and prior to that date the carrier had
no opportunity to fix or control the hours of service of employees filling the
positions, and maintained no record of their hours of service until January,
1921. Decision-Claim of employees denied. ACL-Clks. Decision No. 762.
When the National Agreement became effective, carrier in question took
position that certain stations, about 70 in number, were larger stations, where
the agreement would not apply to the chief clerks to the agents at such points,
while the employees claim that there were no stations on the line that would
come under this classification, but later agreed to except ten of the larger
stations. Failing to reach an agreement on all of the stations involved, a joint
submission was made to the United States Railroad Administration, and Board
of Adjustment No. 3 issued Decision 733, which provides that chief clerks to
11
local freight agents should be subject to the provisions of the clerks' national
agreement. This decision was not put into effect, but after conferences be-
tween the representatives of the employees and the carrier, an agreement was
reached in March, 1921, which provided that chief clerks to the agents at ten
stations enumerated therein should be excepted from the rules of the clerks'
national agreement, and that effective April 1, 1921, the agreement would apply
to all other chief clerks to freight-station agents. Employees are now re-
questing additional compensation that would have accrued to chief clerks at
certain of the stations if the rules of the National Agreement had applied to
their positions during the period March 1, 1920, to April 1, 1921. Carrier
contends that at the conferences held in March, 1921, no reference was made
to the question of retroactive pay nor any claim presented by the employees
at that time, and furthermore that it was specifically set forth in the memo-
randum of agreement dated March 23, 1921, that it would be effective April,
1921, and that the employees accepted and promulgated this agreement. De-
cision-Claim of employees denied. ACL—Clks. Decision No. 835.
Claim of clerk for back pay under Section 3, Article 2, Decision 2. Case
withdrawn by employees and file closed. MP-Clks. Decision No. 840.
Question as to whether certain employee should be given seniority rights
as a clerk from date he was assigned to position of receiving clerk and be
allowed back pay for the period that he was not paid as a clerk while holding
said position subsequent to March 1, 1920. This employee entered the service
of the carrier as a laborer on August 10, 1917. On October 1, 1920, he was
classified by the carrier as a receiving clerk, shown on the clerical seniority
roster, and paid the receiving clerk's rate. Decision-Board decides that this
employee shall be classified as a clerk and shown on the clerical seniority
roster from August 10, 1917, and paid the difference between the compensation
he received in the service from March 1 to October 1, 1920, and the compen-
sation he would have received if he had been classified and paid as a clerk
effective March 1, 1920. Position of employees is, therefore, sustained. LV-
Clks. Decision No. 853.
Claim for back pay under Decision No. 2 for certain employee in the
freight station at certain point who was increased in accordance with Section
6 of Article II of Decision No. 2. Employees contend that this employee
was not an office boy or messenger as specified in Section 6 of Article II,
but was an employee engaged in assorting waybills and tickets and perform-
ing other similar work as described in Section 5 of Article II, and is, there-
fore, entitled to an increase of 10c an hour under said section. The carrier
states that this employee was first carried on the payrolls as press boy, and
later changed to messenger; that his work is so varied that he does not devote
the majority of his time to any particular duty; that an investigation developed
that he averages 25 round trips between the loading platform and the billing
department, makes several trips carrying waybills to and from the yard-
master's office, and is required to put together the shipping order tickets of
the previous day from the billing office and assort and bind them for perma-
nent record; that he takes up, perforates, and arranges in numerical order
and binds for permanent record the carbon copies of the previous day's way-
bills, and that he is also required to put in order stationery for billing clerks
and to take shipping tickets from loading platform to billing office and when
billing is completed to return them to the loading platform. Decision-Claim
of employees denied. ACL-Clks. Decision No. 863.
Claim of certain engine watchmen for hourly basis of payment and back
pay from March 1, 1921. On March 1, 1920, these employees were com-
pensated at an hourly rate, which hourly rate was increased ten cents
per hour in accordance with Section 8, Article 3 of Decision No. 2. Effective
March 1, 1921, rates of pay of these employees were established at a
monthly rate in accordance with Section (á-12), Article 5 of the National
Maintenance of Way Agreement, on the basis of the hourly rate in effect
March 1, 1920, plus increase of $20.40 per month as provided in Decision
2. Employees contend that the term "isolated point" should not apply to
the point in question, and that these employees should be continued on an
hourly basis.
Decision-The Board in its Decision No. 524 gave its in-
12
terpretation of Section (a-12), Article V of the National Maintenance of
Way Agreement, which interpretation shall govern in determining whether
or not the position in question should be rated on a monthly basis. If under
such interpretation the position should be rated on an hourly basis, proper
adjustment shall be made for the period subsequent to March 1, 1921, ac-
count having been paid on a monthly rated basis. C&NW-MofW. De-
cision No. 897.
Shall Decision No. 332, which provides for the restoration of a differential
of three cents per hour for certain carpenter foremen and carpenters when
performing certain classes of work, be made retroactive to August 2,
1920, the date on which the payment of the differential was discontinued
by the carrier. Decision-Yes. C&O-Mof W. Decision No. 902.
When Decision No. 3 was issued on August 16, 1920 (which decision
was made effective May 1, 1920), carrier applied increase prescribed therein
to rate of position held by part time employee as of August 16, 1920. This
employee is now claiming back pay to the effective date of said decision
for the days which he worked between said period, namely, May 1 to August
16, 1920. Decision-Claim of employees sustained. ARE-Clks. Decision
No. 905.
Question as to whether signal maintainers who request permission to leave
their home stations or section, and whose request is refused for any reason,
should be paid for time retroactive to March 1, 1920. Decision-At oral
hearing conducted by Board, it was agreed between interested parties that
further effort would be made to adjust the dispute. Case is, therefore, closed
with prejudice to the right of either party to again submit the matter to
the Labor Board if an adjustment can not be reached. SP-Signalmen. De-
cision No. 924.
Claim of certain clerk, who resigned his position in one office to accept po-
sition in another office of the same carrier, for back pay under provisions of
Decision No. 2. Decision-Board decides that Section 3 of Interpretation
19 to Decision No. 2 covers the question and should govern in this dispute. SP
-Clks. Decision No. 940.
Baggage AGENTS. See “Agents, baggage and ticket."
BAGGAGE. Handling of.
Request for new rule covering the handling of baggage and of joint baggage
and express. Board without jurisdiction account Express Company and joint
baggage and express messengers in employ of Express Company, while parties
to contract with Railroad Company, were not parties to present dispute.
N&W-Tr. Decision No. 63.
Claim that work of handling baggage on certain trains should be assigned
to employees on the train's seniority roster. For some time after the trains
in question were put on, a brakeman was used from the trainmen's seniority
roster to handle the baggage in connection with his duties as brakeman. The
trainmen's committee made claim for additional compensation for the brake-
man on account of this additional service, which request was denied and the
duties of baggageman transferred to the train porter. Employees contend
that the work of handling baggage on these runs should be handled by train-
men shown on the seniority roster and paid at the rate shown for baggagemen
in the agreement. Carrier takes the position that baggage handled is not
sufficient to justify the employment of baggageman and that upon the train-
men objecting to performing service it was transferred to the train porter,
who can handle it without any interference with his other duties, and further
that while the agreement specifies the rate to be paid baggagemen there is
nothing in said agreement which gives those classes of employees claim on
this service, and as baggagemen are not employed there is no reason for the
application of the baggagemen's rate. Decision-Board decides that the work
of handling baggage on the train in question should be paid at the rate shown
for baggagemen in the agreement, and the former practice of having work
performed by a trainman so classified is approved. MK&T-CTE&F. De-
cision No. 772.
13
BAGGAGEMEN HANDLING EXPRESS.
Request that rate for "baggagemen handling express" covered by Section
(a), Article I, Sup. 16, be incorporated into Trainmen's schedule-road con-
tending that as there are no railroad employees filling such position, rate has
no proper place in the schedule. Employees sustained. N&W-Tr. Decision
No. 62.
1
Request for new rule covering the handling of baggage and of joint bag-
gage and express by train baggagemen. As proposed rule would affect the
express company and as that company although under contract with the rail-
road is not a party to this dispute, and as joint baggage and express mes-
sengers (who are employees of the express company) are also not parties
to this dispute, Board declined to exercise jurisdiction. N&W.-TR. Decis-
ion No. 63.
BAGGAGE AND PARCEL ROOM EMPLOYEES.
Question as to whether the increase of 13c per hour granted to baggage
and parcel room employees under Sec. 4, Art. II, Dec. 2, shall be added to rates
in effect at 12:01 A. M., March 1, 1920, or to subsequent rates. T.R.R.Asso-
ciationof St.Louis-Clerks. Int. 2 to Decision No. 2.
Request for increase in rate of pay of baggage and mail porters at Union
Station, St. Louis, Mo., to conform with rate paid at certain other larger ter-
minals, contention being that conditions of employment are the same and same
rate of pay should prevail. Request denied. T.R.R.Assn.of St.L.-Clerks.
Decision No. 123.
Question as to whether employees designated as baggage agent, asst. baggage
agent, and asst. ticket agent, are entitled to increase of 13c per hour under Sec-
tions 2 and 4, Art. II of Decision 2, or to 10c per hour under Sec. 1, Art. V.
Decision-Employees in question shall be increased 13c per hour under Sections
2 and 4, Art II, Dec. 2. TM-Clerks. Decision No. 135.
Request for increased rates of pay for parcel porters generally known as
"red caps" and foremen thereof, engaged in handling parcels and personal
baggage of passengers in and around Union Station, Washington, D. C. Re-
quest denied. Wash.Term. Co.-TBMH&SE. Decision No. 176.
BALLOTING. Method of. See "Representation Rights."
BANGOR & AROOSTOOK RAILROAD.
Increases granted by Labor Board to employees of. Decision No. 5.
BASIC DAY.
Question as to whether the adoption of the eight-within-ten hour rule of
Sup. 24 is mandatory, or whether present basic day rule, which is more favor-
able, may be retained. Decision-Have option of accepting or rejecting in its
entirety the eight-within-ten hour rule. T&P-EF. Decision No. 93.
Dispute in regard to increase in basic day to nine hours making a total
of 50 hours per week-no facts given. Decision-Board understands that
subsequent to filing this dispute an agreement has been negotiated and
consummated and that further negotiations will be conducted with a view
to disposing of this dispute. In view of this fact the case is considered closed
without prejudice to the right of either party in making further submission
in connection therewith if it so desires. Pullman Co.-Shop Crafts. Decision
No. 439.
Question as to number of days constituting a basic year for employees
covered by National M. of Way agreement, employees contending that de-
cision of Board of Adjustment No. 3 placed all monthly-rated employees
under Section (e) of the national agreement, and Int. 1 to Decision 2 of
Labor Board sustains the claim, as the increase for all monthly rated em-
ployees was figured on basis of 306 days per year; therefore, the hourly rate
for all monthly-rated employees covered by national agreement should be com-
puted by multiplying 306 by 8 and dividing the annual salary by the total hours.
Decision-Employees' contention denied. C&NW-MofW. Decision No. 232.
C
14
BASIS FOR APPLYING G. O. 27 AND SUPPLEMENTS.
1. Supplement 4.
2. Supplement 7.
3. Supplement 8.
4. Supplement 13.
5. Supplement 16.
6. Supplement 19.
1. Supplement 4.
Shall the employees who exercise direct supervision over, and are held
responsible for the work of coach cleaners, who are paid hourly rates of
pay, receive 5c per hour above the maximum rate paid coach cleaners at
points employed, in accordance with Section 4, Article III of Supplement 4
to General Order 27. Decision-Yes. SP-ShCrafts. Decision No. 350.
Dispute in regard to proper classification and rating of hoisting engineers
who are engaged in transferring cars over an inclined plane and performing
other services in connection therewith; employees contending that these hoist-
ing engineers perform mechanical work and should be paid the mechanic's
rate in accordance with Supplement 4 to General Order 27, and the National
Shop Agreement, and under Decision 2 should have been increased 15c per
hour. Carrier states that the question now in dispute was submitted to
Railway Board of Adjustment No. 2, which Board in its decision No. 1056
sustained the decision of the carrier in its method of classifying and rating
these employees as stationary engineers and that in view of this fact it is not
a proper submission to the U. S. Railroad Labor Board for decision. De-
cision-Decision 2 provides that increases specified therein shall be added to the
rate of pay established by or under the authority of the U. S. Railroad Ad-
ministration. Therefore, in view of the fact that decision rendered by Board
of Adjustment No. 2, an authorized representative of the U. S. Railroad
Administration, sustained the carrier in its classification and rating of these
positions the Board decides that Decision 2 has been properly applied and
denies claim of the employees for reclassification and rating. CRRofNJ—
MofW. Decision No. 397.
Claim of certain employee in the B. & B. department for classification of
foreman under provisions of Article III of Supplement 4 to G. O. 27. Case
withdrawn by employees and file closed. C&NW-MofW. Decision No. 710.
Dispute in regard to application of minimum rate of composite mechanic to
certain signal maintainers with less than 4 years' experience who were con-
sidered composite mechanics under rulings of the Railroad Administration.
Decision-Evidence indicates that employees in question were classified as
composite mechanics in accordance with Interpretation 2 to Supplement 4
to G. O. 27. Employees who were receiving, prior to July 25, 1918, an amount
equal to or in excess of a minimum or hiring rate paid any craft represented
in the class of which they were composite shall be paid a minimum of hiring
rate of the highest rated craft represented in such composite service. Employ-
ees, who prior to July 25, 1918, were receiving a lower rate than that paid
in any of the crafts of which they were a composite shall receive the step
rate in accordance with their years of experience as outlined in Section (5-a),
Supplement 4 to G. O. 27, with subsequent adjustments. If this decision
has effect of increasing rates of any employees such increased rates shall
bc made effective July 1, 1921. C&A-Sig. Decision No. 795.
Question as to proper rate of pay under Decision No. 2 for certain low-
voltage signalmen and signal maintainers. These employees were rated in
accordance with Section (1-a), Article II of Supplement 4 to G O. 27 (58c).
When Interpretation 2 to Supplement 4 was issued, employees contended that
the men referred to were composite mechanics, and should have been paid as
provided in Section 1, Article II, of Supplement 4, namely 68c per hour. The
carrier disagreed with this contention, and joint submission was filed with the
Railroad Administration. On December 20, 1919, the Railroad Administra-
tion authorized the application of the 4c per hour specified in the National
Shopcrafts' Agreement to the rates of signal department employees, covered by
15
Supplement 4 to G. O. 27, establishing the rates of 62c and 72c per hour re-
spectively. On February 25, 1920, Supplement 28 to G. O. 27 was issued,
which provided that signalmen and signal maintainers covered by Signalmen's
Agreement, who were classified and paid in accordance with Section (5-a),
Article I, of Supplement 4, should be paid 68c per hour. This latter rate was
the rate these employees were receiving at the termination of Federal control,
and to which the increase specified in Decision 2 was added, establishing a rate
of 81c per hour. On November 2, 1920, the decision of the Director General
of Railroads was received in connection with the submission made, which de-
cision provided that "the employees in question are properly classified as signal
maintainers. They perform the duties of composite mechanics and shall be
rated and paid in accordance with Interpretation 2 of Supplement 4 to G. O.
27 from the effective date of said supplement." Employees contended that
this decision provided for the employees in question the rate of 85c per hour.
The carrier did not concur in the views of the employees, taking the position
that these employees were a composite of low-voltage linemen and signal main-
tainers, and that under their interpretation of the Director General's decision,
the employees were being properly compensated. The employees objected to
the carrier's interpretation of the Director General's decision, and the matter
was again handled with the United States Railroad Administration, and is
still pending before the Administration. Decision-(a) Based upon evidence
in this case, the Board decides that if any difference of opinion exists as to
actual work being performed by these employees, a proper joint investigation
should be made by the duly authorized representatives of the carrier and the
employees, and rate of pay established accordingly; (b) in regard to applica-
tion of Decision No. 2, the Board does not feel that the question is properly
before it, in that the matter is still one of dispute between the employees and
the United States Railroad Administration. If, after definite understanding
or ruling from the Administration, it is the desire of employees to again bring
the matter to the attention of the Board, such procedure may be followed after
proper compliance with the provisions of the Transportation Act. SP-Sig.
Decision No. 903.
2. Supplement 7.
Question as to proper classification and rating of certain pump house
employees. During Federal control upon submission of dispute to Director
General Decision No. 15 was rendered classifying said employees as stationary
engineers under Section 2, Article II, of Supplement 7 to General Order 27,
but said decision was never applied by carrier. Employees now contend that
this decision of the Director General established the classification of stationary
engineers for those employees and that the rate applicable to that class under
Supplement 7, plus the increase specified in Section 1, Article 8, of Decision 2
should apply to the employees in question. Decision-increases specified in
Decision 2 were to be added to the rates established by or under the authority
of the United States Railroad Administration. Therefore, in view of the
fact that Director General decided the employees in question were stationary
engineers within the meaning and intent of Supplement 7, the Board decided
that increases specified in Decision 2 should be added to rate of pay established
by the United States Railroad Administration for stationary engineers. DL&W
-MofW. Decision No. 352.
Question as to whether clerk in freight station at certain point, whose
position was abolished, should be permitted to exercise seniority rights in the
office of superintendent of transportation at the same point. This privilege
was denied on the ground that clerk in question did not hold seniority in that
department while the employees contend that these two offices are in the same
seniority district. Decision-Board decides that the two offices in question
are not within the same seniority district as contemplated by Section (b),
Article XII of Supplement 7 to G. O. 27, and claim is, therefore, denied.
G&SI-Clks. Decision No. 460.
Claim that clerk in general dispatcher's office, whose position was abolished,
should be permitted to exercise his seniority rights in local freight office at
same point. Employees contend that clerk in question was carrier on the same
16
seniority roster as clerk in local freight office and should have been permitted
to exercise his seniority in that office, while the carrier takes the position
that he was not in the same seniority district and not entitled to displace em-
ployee younger in the service at the local freight office. Decision-Ūnder the
provisions of Section (b), Article 12 of Supplement 7 to G. O. 27, the two
offices referred to are within the same department of the superintendent's
division on which this clerk was employed and the Board, therefore, decides
that he should be permitted to exercise his seniority rights to any position
within the scope of the National Agreement in the local freight office in
accordance with Rules 27 and 31 of the agreement. G&SI-Clks. Decision
No. 463.
Dispute with reference to preservation of rates for certain clerical em-
ployees. Supplement No. 7 to G. O. 27, established for certain clerical em-
ployees rates of pay which were less than those established by G. O. 27, but
in conference with representatives of the employees the carrier agreed to
preserve the higher rates established by G. O. 27, which agreement was ap-
proved by the Regional Director. Subsequently the Federal manager issued
instructions that all rates established by G. O. 27 which were higher than
those authorized by Supplement 7 thereto, should be reduced when the positions
to which they applied became vacant. Employees contend that action of the
carrier in reducing the rates of the positions involved is in violation of Rule
86 of the Clerks' National Agreement, Decision 2 of the Labor Board, and
the Transportation Act, and request that the rates of pay established by G. O.
27 be restored and that the employees who suffered reduction in wages be
reimbursed for monetary loss sustained. Decision-Board decides that rates
established by G. O. 27, and preserved by agreement between representatives
of the employees and the carrier were the rates established by or under the
authority of the U. S. Railroad Administration in effect 12:01 a. m., March
1, 1920, and should have remained in effect until changed by mutual agreement
or decision of the Board. The subsequent action authorized by the Federal
manager, but without conference or agreement, seems to have been an after-
thought and while in equity may have had some justification it was not so
properly handled as to give it full force and effect.
The employees involved shall, therefore, be reimbursed for the difference
between the rates of pay they received while holding the positions affected
and the rates which should have been established for such positions by applying
the decisions of the Labor Board to the rates in effect 12:01 a. m., March 1,
1920. SP-Clks. Decision No. 622.
3. Supplement 8.
Question as to proper classification and rate of pay of an assistant foreman,
March 1 to September 1, 1920, during which period carrier allowed this em-
ployee a differential of 5c per hour over the laborers' rate in accordance with
Supplement 8 to G. O. 27. Employees contend that this employee had previ-
ously held the position of assistant foreman and that in September, 1918, he was
paid on this position at the rate of $110.00 per month; that he was not laid
off on account of his inefficiency, but account of reduction of force, and
claim, therefore, that he should be paid at this monthly rate from March
1 to April 30, 1920, and from May 1 to September 1, the monthly rate plus
the increase under Decision 2. Decision-The rate established by or under
the authority of U. S. Railroad Administration for assistant track fore-
men was 5c per hour in excess of the rates paid laborers whom they
supervise. Therefore, the position of the carrier is sustained. NYC-
MofW. Decision No. 601.
Question as to whether it is permissible to assign coal chute foreman
to work a less number of hours or days than laborers supervised. During
a certain period the laborers in this foreman's crew were required to work
10 hours per day and also on Sundays and holidays, while the foreman
was assigned to work only 9 hours with no Sunday or holiday work, and
employees contend that Section (a), Article XI of Supplement 8 to G. O.
27. has not been complied with. Decision-Board cannot find that carrier
has violated any rule or agreement in handling this matter and accordingly
sustains the carrier's position. C&NW-Mof W. Decision No. 713.
17
4. Supplement 13.
Where copy operator at certain point formerly assigned to duty seven
days a week was relieved on Sundays and his work which consisted of
transmitting messages, reports and train orders for passenger trains by
telegraph, was handled by train dispatcher, claim is made for compensation
for Sundays on which the regular duties of the position were handled by
train dispatcher, contention being that the agreement between the employees
and carrier provides that the duties of all positions listed therein shall be
performed by the classes of employees specified in Article I therein when-
ever such employees are available. Carrier contends its action in relieving
this copy operator from Sunday service was not in conflict with provisions
of any order or agreement, but on the contrary was in accordance with in-
structions of Director General of Railroads in the closing paragraph of
Supplement 13 to General Order 27. Decision-Claim of employees denied.
L&NRy-Tel. Decision No. 383.
5. Supplement 16.
Where branch line runs were increased under Sec. (c) Art. V, Sup. 16 using
rates in effect December 31, 1917, as basing figures, contention made that rates
of G. O. 27 should have been used. Decided Railroad had properly applied pro-
visions of Sup. 16. N&W-CT. Decision No. 61.
Where in the application of Supplement 16 to G. O. 27, certain brake-
men in local passenger service were receiving a higher monthly rate than
provided in the Supplements, and which higher rate was retained in accord-
ance with question and decision thereon in Interpretation 1 to Supplement
16, question now arises as to whether increase of $30.00 per month as
provided in Section 1, Article VII of Decision 2, should be added to the
old guaranteed monthly rate and if so how the daily rate should be ob-
tained-or should the $30.00 be added to the daily and monthly rate provided
in Article I of Supplement 16 to G. O. 27. Decision-The $30.00 per month
specified in Section 1, Article VII of Decision 2, should be added to the
old guaranteed monthly rate which was retained under Interpretation 1
to Supplement 16, and the same existing method of procuring the daily
and hourly method of pay shall be maintained. LA&SL-C&T. Decision
No. 487.
6. Supplement 19.
Request for equalization of rates of pay of two positions in the settle-
ment department at certain point, employees contending that the work of
the two positions is identical and that the rates of same should be equalized,
in accordance with Section (b), Article I of Supplement 19 to General
Order 27. Carrier contends that Supplement 19 to General Order 27 does
not provide for equalization of rates of employees doing same class of
work, but only employees doing the same work; furthermore, that the higher
rate is paid to an employee who was formerly cashier and whose position
was abolished in consolidation of the express companies at the point in
question. Therefore, the payment of the higher rate is for a special or ex-
traordinary reason within the meaning and intent of Section (b), Article
I of Supplement 19. Decision-Evidence before the Board shows that the
two employees involved were not performing the same work at the same
agency within the meaning and intent of Section (b), Article I of Supple-
ment 19, and request of the employees is, therefore, denied. ARECo-Cĺks.
Decision No. 369.
Request for equalization of rate of pay of position of assistant pay-
masters with rate of position of bookkeeper at same point, employees con-
tending that the duties performed by these two employees are practically the
same and that under provisions of Article I of Section (e) of Supplement
19 to G. O. 27, the rates of pay should be the same, and request equalization
in accordance with Section (b) of Supplement 19. Decision-Board construes
Section (b), Article I, Supplement 19, to provide for equalization of rates
for the same work at the same agency. Evidence in this case indicates that
the work of the two positions is not the same work within the meaning and in-
18
tent of section referred to and denies request of employees. ARECo-Clks.
Decison No. 371.
Request of certain inspectors, whose duties consist of collecting prepays and
expense for period of about 7 hours per day and inspecting bad order ship-
ments about one hour per day, for increase in compensation to equalize the
rate of their positions with rate paid employees classified as street inspectors,
whose duties consist of direct supervision over all vehicles operated in desig-
nated territory, keeping in touch with shippers, and arranging for wagon
service. Carrier contends that there is no similarity between the two classes
of inspectors referred to, and that the employees involved are not performing
the same work at the same agency as contemplated by Section (b), Article I
of Supplement 19 to G. O. 27. Decision-Claim of employees is denied.
ARE-Clks. Decision No. 666.
Request for increase in rates of pay of receiving clerk at the depot office
at certain point to equalize with rates paid counter clerks in the city office at
the same point. Carrier contends that the duties of the position referred to
are not identical and that the employees are not performing the same work
at the same agency within the intent of Section (b), Article I, Supplement
19 to G. O. 27. Decision-Position of carrier sustained. ARE-Clks. De-
cision No. 671.
Dispute with reference to proper rate of pay of certain express driver,
whom it was claimed was paid a rate of pay less than regular rate of the
position he held. Carrier states that there was in effect for many years a
graduating scale of wages under which there existed a difference of $5.00
between starting rate and the rate after three months' service and a difference
of $15.00 per month between the starting rate and the rate paid after twelve
months' service, and in the application of Supplement 19 to G. O. 27 and De-
cisions 3 and 217 of the Labor Board, the increases and decreases provided
therein were applied to the graduating scale of wages in existence. Decision-
Fosition of carrier sustained. ARE-Clks. Decision No. 697.
Dispute with reference to proper classification and rate of pay of a platform
employee, who during a portion of his time used a horse and wagon in the
performance of his duties, by reason of which contention is made that he
should be classified and paid as driver. Carrier states that employee referred
to was primarily a platform employee under supervision of a foreman at the
point employed and that he was furnished with a horse and wagon to use
in connection with transferring freight at the depot in lieu of a four wheeled
manually propelled truck, while the regular drivers are required to pick up and
deliver freight from shippers and consignees and perform such wagon transfer
as is necessary between the various express depots in the city, and that the
claimant is not performing the same work within the meaning and intent of
Section (b), Article I of Supplement 19 to G. O. 27. Decision-Claim of em-
ployee is denied. ARE-Clks. Decision 703.
BEGINNING AND ENDING OF DAY.
Where engine was assigned for certain period to a through passenger train
running through and beyond terminal point, claim is made for additional 100
miles for the service beyond terminal point; total mileage of entire trip only
being allowed. Board decides payment for time was properly made in accord-
ance with schedule rule. OWRR&N Co-EF. Decision No. 99.
BOILER ROOM EMPLOYEES. Increases granted by Labor Board
to. See "Art. VIII-Dec. 2" and "Art. VII, Dec. 5."
Decreases, effective July 1, 1921, covering-see "Art. VIII, Dec. 147."
BRANCH LINES.
1. Application of Decision 2 to
2. Application of G. O. 27 and its supplements to
19
1. Application of Decision 2 to.
Shall the minimum daily and monthly rates on branch lines, which are higher
than the revised main line rates provided for in Sups. 15 and 24, be increased
by Dec. 2? Yes. L&N-EF. Int. 7 to Decision 2.
Question as to how Dec. 2 shall be applied to existing rate allowed engineers
on certain branch lines for their services as conductors plus amounts earned as
engineers. Decision-Question relates to increasing arbitrary rates and special
allowances which are closely interwoven with certain rules, and which rules will
be given consideration by Board when question of rules is taken up for decision.
L&N-EF. Int. 9 to Decision No. 2.
Question as to application of Dec. 2 to monthly guarantee on certain short
Case withdrawn. Parties at interest agreeing on settlement. OWRR&N
Co-EF. Decision No. 98.
runs.
2. Application of G. O. 27 and Its Supplements to.
Where branch line runs were increased under Sec. (c), Art. V, Sup. 16 using
rates in effect December 31, 1917, as basing figures, contention made that rates
of G. O. 27 should have been used. Decided railroad had properly applied pro-
visions of Sup. 16. N&W-CT. Decision No. 61.
BRIDGE AND BUILDING FOREMEN. See "Foremen."
BROTHERHOOD OF DINING AND SLEEPING CAR EMPLOY-
EES' UNION.
Request for increases in wages and changes in working conditions. Denied.
GN-BofDSCEU. Decision No. 54.
BULLETIN HOURS.
Under provisions of Rule 6, Addendum 6, to Decision 222, shall time and
one-half be allowed an employee who is required to work on Saturday, when
the shops are bulletined to work Monday to Friday, inclusive? Decision—
Yes, this is time outside of bulletin hours, and should, therefore, be compen-
sated on the basis of time and one-half. HV-ShCrf. Decision No. 890.
BULLETINED POSITIONS. Awarding of-See "Seniority."
BULLETINING POSITIONS. See "Vacancies-Bulletining and Filling."
CABOOSE. Time lost waiting for
Claim of freight conductor filling temporary vacancy in passenger service
for time lost while waiting for return of his caboose which was out on the
line, when displaced in passenger service by return of regular man. Sustained.
D&SL-EFCT. Decision No. 35.
CALENDAR DAYS.
Question as to how the increases provided in Sec. 7, Art. III of Decision 2.
shall be applied to employees who are assigned to work the calendar days of
the month, are paid a monthly rate and receive no additional compensation for
service performed on Sundays and holidays. Decision-Increase rate by $17.34
(204x82c). N&W-MofW. Int. 1 to Decision No. 2.
CALENDAR YEAR. Number of days constituting a-See "Basic Year-
number of days constituting a.
CALLS. Pay for (See also "Overtime.")
Claim for pay under call rule in addition to compensation for period of
regular assignment. Employee in question, after working eight hours on his
assigned position in station service, covered a messenger run for several days
between certain points. Evidence indicates that it is customary for station
employees to fill temporary vacancies in messenger service when such service
can be performed without interference with regular station assignment, and
20
carrier contends said employee was paid for this extra service in accordance
with the rules, and that such service was not related to or continuous with his
duties in station service. Decision-Claim denied. ARECo-Clks. Decision
No. 276.
Claim of telegraph operator, regularly assigned to third trick, 11 p. m.
to 7 a. m., for pay under overtime and call rule, in addition to pay of regular
assignment, account required to work the second trick, 3 to 11 p. m., for three
consecutive days. Employee was paid at straight time rate of the second
shift. Decision-Claim denied. DUT-Tel. Decision No. 302.
Question as to whether (1) Addendum 2 to Decision 119 provides for
payment of pro rata rate for regular and special assignments on Sundays
and holidays, and (2) Addendum 2 affects payment under the call rule as
embodied in the National Agreement. Employees contend that Addendum 2
to Decision 119 makes no mention of Sunday and holiday work, but has refer-
ence only to overtime after regular hours, and in view of the fact that ques-
tion as to payment of Sunday and holiday time was one of the disputed rules
submitted to the Labor. Board for decision, the National Agreement should
apply until the Labor Board renders a decision on this question. In regard
to payment for call, employees take position that until a decision is rendered
thereon the National Agreement should also apply and three hours should be
the minimum payment. Carrier takes position that as no overtime was allowed
for Sunday and holiday work prior to Federal control, it is proper, in accord-
ance with Addendum 2 to Decision 119, to pay pro rata for such service until
the Board disposes of the question; and that in regard to the call rule, that
in allowing a minimum of two hours at pro rata rate they are complying with
the meaning and intent of Decision 119 and Addendum 2 thereto. Decision—
(1) Under provisions of Addendum 2 to Decision 119 pro rata rate shall be
paid for regular and special assignments of signal department employees on
Sunday and holidays, except classes of employees which have reached agree-
ments on overtime rates or who by agreement or practice were receiving a
rate higher than pro rata prior to the promulgation of any general order of
the U. S. Railroad Administration relating to wages and working conditions ;
(2) inasmuch as the call rule referred to specifies an allowance of "two hours
at overtime rates," the overtime rate under provisions of Addendum 2 to
Decision 119 shall be applied. These decisions shall apply with the under-
standing that if the rules promulgated by the Board are more favorable to the
employees adjustment in compensation due will be made by the carrier.
NYCRR-Sig. Decision No. 407.
Shall pumpers and similar classes of employees paid under provisions of
Section (a-12) of Article V of the national maintenance of way agreement be
paid overtime under provisions of Sections (a-7) and (a-8) and for calls
under provisions of Sections (a-9), (a-10) and (a-11) of said agreement?
Decision-No. This not to include positions excepted in last paragraph of
Section (a-12) of Article V. IllCent-Mof W. Decision No. 548.
Claim of agent for pay under call rule account conductor of train, which
departed from station outside of period of agent's regular assignment, getting
clearance from dispatcher by telephone. Decision-Matter complained of hav-
ing occurred before passage of Transportation Act, 1920, and the Board being
of the opinion that this act was not intended to have a retroactive or retro-
spective effect, decides it has no jurisdiction in this dispute, and file is there-
fore closed. CM&StP-Tel. Decision No. 563.
CAPTAINS OF RAILROAD LIGHTERS AND BARGES IN PORT
OF NEW YORK.
Increases by Labor Board to. Decision No. 4.
CAPTION OF agreemENT. Dispute as to-See “Agreements-Cap-
tion of"
CAR ACCOUNTANT-CLASSIFICATION OF. See "Classification of
Positions, Service and Rates (1)."
&
21
CESSATION OF WORK. See "Quitting Work."
CHANGING AGREEMENTS. See "Agreements-Change in."
CHANGING DATE OF TERMINATION OF PAYROLL WEEK.
See "Payroll Week-Change in date of termination of."
CHANGING SHIFTS-PAY WHEN.
Where employee filling second trick (3 p. m. to 11 p. m.), position as
tender repairman, was laid off account reduction in force, and exercised his
seniority by accepting first trick (7 a. m. to 3:15 p. m.), position in car
department, question as to whether said employee is entitled to overtime rates.
for the first shift worked in the car department under Rule 13 of the National
Agreement. Decision-Rule in question makes no distinction as to whether
or not employee is transferred at instance of carrier or of his own accord.
Board, therefore, decides that overtime in accordance with rule should be
allowed for the first shift of the change. CCC&StL—Shop Crafts. Decision
No. 353.
Question as to proper application of Rule 13 of the National Shop Agree-
ment to employees changing shifts where a period of lapse of service of 24
hours or over intervenes, the positions on which these employees were engaged
being abolished on Saturday, and these employees assigned to other service
starting the following Monday. Decision-Board decides upon the particular
question in dispute that the shifts to which the employees were transferred
were not maintained on Sundays, and that therefore the time intervening be-
tween the changing of the shifts should not have operated to deprive the em-
ployees of the overtime rate provided in Rule 13, and that they should be re-
imbursed accordingly. WM-ShCfts. Decision No. 920.
CHANGING TERMINALS. See "Terminals-Changing or abolishing."
CHANGING WORKING CONDITIONS. See "Rules and Working
Conditions-changes in."
CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE & GARY RAILWAY.
Application to be made a party to and have Decision 2 apply to said carrier.
Granted. Add. 2 to Decision No. 2.
CHIEF CLERKS. Inclusion of-in Clerks' National Agreement. See
"National Agreements (3)."
CHIEF DISPATCHERS. See "Dispatchers."
CHORE BOYS.
Application of increases under Dec. 2 to-See "Decision
2-Application of (1)."
CINDER PIT MEN. See "Ash Pit Men."
CLAIMS-ADJUSTMENT OF.
Request for rule providing that the adjustment of any claim will establish
the basis for the adjustment of similar claim. Parties at interest agreed upon
settlement and withdrew case from Board. OWRR&N-E&F. Decision
No. 315.
CLAM SHELL MACHINE.
Request that a self-propelling clam shell used on main track by masonry
forces be classed as a work train. Denied. N&W-C. Decision No. 84.
CLASS M-2 ENGINES. Request for seats on-See “Engines-request
for seats on.
22
CLASSIFICATION OF POSITIONS, SERVICE AND RATES.
1. Clerical Forces
2. Maintenance of Way Forces
3. Shop Forces
4. Train, Engine, and Yard Service Forces.
5. Signal Forces
6. Stationary Engine and Boilerroom Employees
7. Telegraph Forces
8. Express Employees
1. Clerical Forces.
Claim that Chattanooga, Tennessee, does not come within the class of
"larger stations" as referred to in Paragraph (b) under Title "Exceptions,"
Rule 1, Art. 1, Clerks' National Agreement, and that position of Chief Clerk to
the agent at this point comes within scope of National Agreement and should
be bulletined for bid account individual increase allowed such position. Claim
denied. NC&StL-Clerks. Decision No. 87.
Question whether positions of Shop watchmen at repair shops come within
scope of Paragraph 2, Rule 1, Art. I, Clerks' National Agreement-employees
contending term "watchmen" as used in rule referred to applies to all watch-
men except those carried as railroad policemen, and that such employees should
be paid on a daily basis of eight consecutive hours exclusive of meal period,
with appropriate overtime rates for time worked in excess thereof and on Sun-
days and holidays. Decision-Positions referred to do not come within scope
of Clerks' National Agreement. C&A-Clerks. Decision No. 113.
Question as to whether employees engaged in handling rail, lumber, scrap,
etc., under supervision of foremen around the storehouses, classified as laborers,
are entitled to increase of twelve cents per hour under Sec. 7, Art. II, or to
eight and one-half cents under Sec. 9, Art. II of Dec. 2. Decision-Entitled
to eight and one-half cents under Sec. 9, Art II-employees in question are not
station, platform, storeroom, freight handlers or truckers, etc., within the intent
of Sec. 7 of Art. II. EP&SW-Clerks. Decision No. 125:
Claim that reassignment of work and readjustment of rates of pay of cer-
tain positions was in conflict with Rule 91 of Express Employees' Agreement.
Decision-Position of Company sustained. ARECo-Clerks. Decision No. 127.
Question as to whether rearrangement of work and readjustment of rates
of pay of certain positions brought about by merger of two departments, is in
conflict with Rules 71 and 84 of the Clerks' National Agreement, employees con-
tending that the duties have not been changed. Decision-Position of carrier
sustained. C&NW-Clerks. Decision No. 183.
Question as to application of Decision 2 to position of shop accountant, em-
ployees contending that the occupant of this position should be classified as a
subordinate official and increased under Section 1 of Article II, while carrier
holds that position in question is of a supervisory character. Decision-Position
in question is not included in Decision 2. MK&T-Clerks. Decision No. 200.
Was the action of the carrier in abolishing the position of chief car record
clerk and creating position of car accountant in conflict with Rule 84 of
clerks' national agreement, and does the position of car accountant come
within the scope of the agreement? Decision-Board decides that action of
carrier was not a violation of Rule 84, and that the position of car accountant
at the point in question is not within the scope of the national agreement.
RF&P-Clks. Decision No. 241.
Claim that classification of position as "red cap" is improper, as major
portion of the work performed is work generally recognized as janitor's work,
and position should, therefore, come within the scope of the Clerks' National
Agreement and be subject to the provisions thereof. Decision-Position in
question is properly classified as red cap, and therefore does not come within
the scope of the Clerks' National Agreement as defined in Article I thereof.
SP-Clks. Decision No. 246.
Question as to whether employees engaged in handling baggage, mail and
express, cleaning stations and grounds, attending fires and lights, and perform-
23
:
ing other necessary duties in and around stations, are entitled to increase of
12c per hour under Sec. 7, Art. II, Dec. 2. Decision-Employees in question
are not station or platform freight handlers or truckers, or others similarly
engaged, and not, therefore, entitled to increase under Sec. 7, Art. II, of
Dec. 2. RF&P-Clerks. Decision No. 286.
Question as to whether position of telephone switchboard operator is a
clerical position as defined in Rule 4 of Clerks' National Agreement, and
whether occupant thereof should be included in the clerical seniority roster.
Position in question was abolished and occupant thereof claims displacement
rights over junior clerical employees, which was denied by carrier on ground
she held no clerical seniority rights. Decision-Claim of employees denied.
N&W-Clerks. Decision No. 284.
Question as to whether position now filled by employee who is classified
and paid as car cleaner is a clerical position as defined in Rule 4 of Article II
of Clerks' National Agreement. Employees contend that duties of this car
cleaner consist of keeping reports and accounts, writing and transcribing
repair statement and performing similar work for a period averaging five
hours per day regularly, and that his position, therefore, is one which should
be designated as a clerical position in accordance with the agreement. Deci-
sion-Evidence before the Board shows that this employee devotes more than
four hours per day to clerical work as defined in Rule 4 of Article II of the
Clerks' National Agreement and the position of the employees is therefore
sustained. MP-Clerks. Decision No. 368.
Question as to how increases specified in Article II of Decision 2 shall be
applied to laborers, store helpers, and stockmen employed in the store depart-
ment at certain point. Employees contend that the laborers are engaged in
loading and unloading, trucking and handling material and supplies, and should
have been increased 12c per hour under Section 7, Article II; that the store
helpers devote the majority of their time to clerical work and should have
been increased 13c per hour under Section 2, Article II; that the stockmen
keep records of stock, make reports of stock on hand, check materials, super-
vise other employees in storehouse, and are entitled to an increase of 13c per
hour under Section 1, Article II. Decision-Board decides on evidence before
it that these laborers are not station, platform, or store-room freight handlers,
or truckers or others similarly engaged within the intent of Section 7 of
Article II; that the store helpers and stockmen referred to do not devote a
majority of their time to work of a clerical nature as defined in Rule 4, Arti-
cle II, of the Clerks' National Agreement; that the stockmen are not clerical
supervisory employees referred to in Section 1, Article II, of Section 2; and
claim of employees is therefore denied. M&ORy-Clerks. Decision No. 384.
Question as to whether employees engaged in loading and unloading of
cars, filling oil tanks, sweeping and cleaning, and loading and unloading
material on and off tanks of engines in the stores department of the engine-
house are entitled to an increase of 12c per hour under Section 7, Article II,
or to 8½c per hour under Section 9, Article II, of Decision 2, employees
contending that some of their work is of a nature which cannot be performed
by unskilled laborers and that the employees in question are entitled to an
increase of 12c per hour. Decision-Board decides that employees involved
are not store-room freight handlers, or truckers, or others similarly engaged
within the intent of Section 7, Article II, of Decision 2, and claim of em-
ployees is therefore denied. NYC-Clerks. Decision No. 391.
{
Question as to whether rate established by Railroad Administration for
employees classified as check clerks in freight office at certain point shall con-
tinue in effect after expiration of Federal control. During period of Federal
control the positions involved in this dispute were changed from classification
of stevedores paid on hourly basis to check clerks paid on monthly basis. A
dispute arose as to the proper rate of pay for these employees and decision
was issued by the Director General of Railroads increasing the monthly rate,
which rate the carrier applied and continued to pay until the expiration of
Federal control, when it decreased the monthly rate to the former basis. The
employees contend that the higher rate having been authorized by the Director
General of Railroads, became a part of the national agreement and should
remain in effect as provided in Rule 86 of said agreement. Decision—The
24
Board decides that the rate of the positions involved in this dispute was the
rate established by and under the authority of the U. S. Railroad Administra-
tion and in accordance with the provisions of Rule 86 of the national agree-
ment, Decision 2 of the Labor Board, and the Transportation Act, this rate
shall remain in effect until changed by mutual agreement or by decision of
the Board. StLSF-Clerks. Decision No. 465.
Dispute in regard to classification and rate of pay of position of baggage-
man clerk at certain point. Prior to April 1, 1921, a major portion of the
time consumed by this employee was devoted to the work of trucking and
handling baggage. On that date there was added to the position sufficient
clerical duties to justify its classification as a clerk within the designation of
Rule 4 of the Clerks' National Agreement and the position was designated as
baggageman clerk at specified daily rate, which rate was established by multi-
plying the hourly rate previously paid by the number of hours constituting a
day's work. Employees contend that the change constituted the establishment
of a new position, the rate of which should conform with the rate of position
of similar kind and class in the seniority district in which it was created, and
further contend that the rate should have been established by applying prin-
ciple contained in Rule 66 of the Clerks' National Agreement. Carrier takes
position that Rule 66 has no application and that the duties of the position in
question are not similar to duties of positions in the same seniority district
which the employees claim are of similar kind and class. Decision-Position
of carrier sustained. SP-Clerks. Decision No. 466.
Question as to whether positions of collector on toll bridge at certain
point shall be included within the scope of the Clerks' National Agreement,
employees contending that these collectors are performing work similar to that
performed by ticket clerks and that said positions should, therefore, come
within the scope of the agreement. Carrier claims that the only work of a
clerical nature as defined in Rule 4 of the national agreement performed by
these employees is the preparation of the ticket report to the auditor, which
consumes about 30 minutes of each 8-hour trick. Decision-Board decides that
the positions in question do not come within the scope of the Clerks' National
Agreement and claim of employees is therefore denied. StLSF-Clerks.
Decision No. 471.
Dispute regarding proper rate of pay of certain clerk. Decision—At hear-
ing conducted in this case it was found that evidence was not sufficiently clear
for the Board to render a decision thereon and in accordance with expressed
willingness of the representatives of the employees and carrier to conduct
further conferences for purpose of developing the facts, case was returned to
the parties at interest and file closed. SP-Clerks. Decision No. 512.
Dispute concerning rate of pay and compensation for messengers employed
in local freight office at certain point. Decision-As carrier and employees
have not made proper effort to determine applicability of Rule 49 of Clerks'
National Agreement to this case, Board decides that parties to this dispute
shall conduct an investigation of the work performed in an effort to determine
whether or not the employees are properly subject to Rule 49, and in event
that an agreement cannot be reached, refer the matter to this Board for
decision, giving full information as to the extent to which service requires
continuous application. D&RG-Clerks. Decision No. 559.
Claim that position held by employee now classified and paid as trucker is
a clerical position as defined in Rule 4, Article II, of the Clerks' National
Agreement and should be reclassified in accordance therewith. Decision-
Evidence before the Board shows that employee in question does not devote
more than four hours a day to clerical work as defined in rule referred to,
and claim of employees is therefore denied. PM-Clerks. Decision No. 565.
Dispute with reference to proper rate of pay of certain clerical employees.
Decision-Case withdrawn by employees and file closed. Penn-Clerks. De-
cision No. 570.
a
Dispute with reference to proper rate of pay of head clerk in the over-
charge claim department. Decision-It appears that this dispute covers
controversy which arose during the period of Federal control and has already
been the subject of a decision by the Director General of Railroads. Board
25
decides, therefore, that it has no jurisdiction and case is removed from docket
and file closed. C&S-Clerks. Decision No. 575.
Question as to whether certain positions, the duties of which were mate-
rially changed, should be bulletined and employees holding same be permitted
to exercise their seniority rights under the rules of the Clerks' National
Agreement. Employees contend that the employees involved in this dispute
held positions of rate revision clerks, and that the change in the character
of the work of their positions constituted the abolishment of the positions of
rate clerks and the establishment of new positions of correspondence clerks,
and that these employees should, therefore, be permitted to exercise their
seniority rights over junior rate clerks in the office, and that the positions
which they held should be bulletined as positions of correspondence clerks, in
accordance with the rules of the agreement. Carrier states that as a result
of an increase in the amount of correspondence and statements of differences
handled, it was necessary to reapportion the work among the clerks in the
office in question, in order to avoid an unequal distribution of the work; that
no change was made in the rates of pay or hours of service; that the clerks
continued on their positions without loss in time, and that no new positions
were created. Decision-Board decides that positions held by the employees
involved were not abolished; that the action taken by the carrier was not in
violation of any rule of the national agreement, and claim of employees is
therefore denied. B&O-Clks. Decision No. 740.
น
Dispute regarding proper classification and rate of pay of certain engine
dispatchers-no facts given. Case withdrawn and file closed. MK&T-Clks.
Decision No. 741.
Dispute with reference to proper rate of pay of certain clerk-no facts
given. Case withdrawn and file closed. MK&T-Clks. Decision No. 742.
Dispute with reference to proper rate of pay of certain clerical employee-
no facts given. Decision-Matter referred to having occurred before passage
of the Transportation Act, under which this Board was created, and the
Board being of the opinion that said act was not intended to have retroactive
or retrospective effect, Board decides that it has no jurisdiction in this dis-
pute, and it is therefore removed from the docket and file closed. ACL-Clks.
Decision No. 761.
Claim of certain timekeepers for back pay from March 1, 1920, to January
1, 1921, account reclassification of their positions from a monthly to a daily
basis. These positions were originally classed as "personal office force" and
excepted from the provisions of the Clerks' National Agreement, but in Janu-
ary, 1921, the carrier, after conference with the clerks' committee, agreed to
change the classification and include the positions within the scope of the
agreement. Carrier contends that in the conference with the committee there
was no request for making the change in classification and basis of pay retro-
active; that there is no justification for the employees' claim, since the change
was made at their request in January, 1921, and prior to that date the carrier
had no opportunity to fix or control the hours of service of employees filling
the positions, and maintained no record of their hours of service until January,
1921. Decision-Claim of employees denied. ACL-Clks. Decision No. 762.
Dispute with reference to proper classification and rate of pay of em-
ployees classified as train and engine-crew callers. Decision-At hearing held
by the Board it developed that parties were not in possession of sufficient
information to enable the Board to render a decision. Case is therefore
remanded to the employees and the carrier to conduct joint investigation to
determine the facts and endeavor to reach a settlement in accordance with
understanding at hearing. I&GN-Clks. Decision No. 782.
Question as to whether Rule 49 of the Clerks' National Agreement is
applicable to positions of foreman and assistant foreman in the baggage and
mail departments, train directors, train callers or announcers, gatemen, infor-
mation bureau clerks, telephone switchboard operators, railroad mail sorters,
and elevator operators at the Union Depot at certain point. Decision-Board
decides that service performed by the employees classified as train directors,
gatemen, elevator operators, train announcers and railroad mail sorters, does
not require continuous application, and they are therefore properly paid in
accordance with Rule 49. The information bureau clerks, telephone informa-
26
tion clerks and foremen should be paid a daily rate to be established as pro-
vided in Rule 66 of the agreement. The employees classified as assistant
foremen, and paid a monthly rate, are not assistant foremen in fact, but are
employees who have heretofore been paid an hourly rate of 2c above the
hourly rate of truckers, and they should be restored to this basis of pay. This
decision is based on the particular facts of this case. StPUDCo-Clks.
Decision No. 824.
Dispute regarding reclassification of position of ticket agent to that of
ticket clerk at reduced rate of pay. Employees contend that under provisions
of agreement, carrier cannot properly change the classification or rate of pay
of a position without conferring with the committee, and in event of failure to
agree, until the change is approved by the Labor Board. Carrier states that
business conditions at the point in question justified the reclassification of the
position to that of ticket clerk, and it was decided to extend the jurisdiction
of the freight agent to cover the passenger station; that the former ticket
agent, who is now ticket clerk, is only required to sell tickets and make reports
incident thereto, and that his rate of pay has been adjusted in accordance with
similar positions on the line under the rulings of the agreement. Decision—
Claim of employees denied. MK&TTel. Decision No. 837.
Question as to whether certain employee should be given seniority rights
as a clerk from date he was assigned to position of receiving clerk and be
allowed back pay for the period that he was not paid as a clerk while holding
said position subsequent to March 1, 1920. This employee entered the service
of the carrier as a laborer on August 10, 1917. On October 1, 1920, he was
classified by the carrier as a receiving clerk, shown on the clerical seniority
roster, and paid the receiving clerk's rate. Decision-Board decides that this
employee shall be classified as a clerk and shown on the clerical seniority
roster from August 10, 1917, and paid the difference between the compensation
he received in the service from March 1 to October 1, 1920, and the compen-
sation he would have received if he had been classified and paid as a clerk
effective March 1, 1920. Position of employees is therefore sustained. LV-
Clks. Decision No. 853.
Dispute regarding proper classification and rate of pay of certain employees.
No facts given, case withdrawn, and file closed. AT&S-Clks. Decision No.
912 and 915.
Claim of certain employees for application of daily rates of pay. No facts
given, case withdrawn, and file closed. AT&S-Clks. Decision No. 914.
Question as to whether the position of chief clerk in Regional Accounting
Department at certain point should be included within the scope of the nationai
agreement covering express employees, and bulletined in accordance with the
provisions thereof. Decision-At hearing held by the Board it developed that
the carrier contends that the position in question was abolished in August, 1921,
while the employees contend that it has not been abolished, and the Board
cannot render a decision on this case until the employees and the carrier jointly
determine whether or not the position was abolishd. ARE-Clks. Decision
No. 933.
2. Maintenance of Way Forces.
Claim is made that provisions of Section 8, Article III, Dec. 2, should apply
to all laborers who work under supervision of Master Mechanic and Round-
house Foreman, and not only to laborers such as engine watchmen and wipers,
fire builders, ash pit men, etc., as applied by company. Decision-(a) Sec.
8, Art. III, Dec. 2 shall be applied to laborers employed in and around shops
and roundhouses who were classified and paid under Paragraph (a), Art. V,
Sup. 7-(b) Sec. 6, Art. III, Dec. 2 shall be applied to laborers employed in
and around shops and roundhouses who were classified and paid under Paragraph
(b), Art. V, Sup: 7. C&NW-MofW. Decision No. 128.
Question whether employees engaged exclusively in filling lubricators are
entitled to classification and rating of machinist helpers; also whether carrier
was warranted in making deductions from an employee's earnings as result of
conflicting decisions rendered by Board of Adjustment. Decision-(a) Em-
ployees if engaged exclusively in filling lubricators are not entitled to classifica-
27
tion and rating of machinist helpers unless and until such classification and rating
is result of agreement between carrier and duly authorized representatives of
said employees-(b) Carrier has advised Labor Board that no deductions will
be made which closes this portion of dispute. C&S-Mof W. Decision No.
144.
Claim that position of night oil house men at certain point comes within
scope of National MofW Agreement and that overtime worked by the occupant
of that position should be paid for under Section (a-1) and (a-8) Art. V, of
said agreement. Claim denied. MC-MofW. Decision No. 88.
Where painters in maintenance of way department were classified and paid
under Sup. 4 and Add. 2 thereto, which rates continued to be applied up to
effective date of Dec. 2 of Labor Board when management considered it had
erred in applying Sup. 4 to these employees and endeavored to correct the error
by applying the increase provided by Dec. 2 to rates that would have been in
effect had Sup. 8 been applied-claim is made that the work performed by these
MofW painters should be classified and paid under the Shop Craft Agreement.
Decision (a) Employees in question do not come under National Shop Agree-
ment and it is not proper to classify and pay them under said Agreement-(b)
increase of 15c specified in Dec. 2 for MofW mechanics to be added to rates in
effect 12:01 a. m., March 1, 1920. DL&W-MofW. Decision No. 92.
Question whether rate specified in Decision 2 for hostler helpers applies to
certain roundhouse employees engaged in assisting inside hostlers. Decision-
No; such employees are not "hostler helpers" within meaning of Decision 2.
TRRASsnof StL-MofW. Decision No. 40.
Where section foreman, in connection with other duties, is required to
supervise coal-chute operations, claim is made that under Section (p), Article
V, of National M. of W. Agreement, such employee is a composite worker
and entitled to rate of pay applicable to coal-house foremen. Decision-Claim
denied; preponderating work of the foreman in question is that of section
foreman, and in accordance with Section (p) of Article V, should be classi-
fied and paid as such. C&NW-MofW. Decision No. 250.
Request for reclassification and rating of pumper now classified and paid
under Section (a-12), Article V, National M. of W. Agreement, whose posi-
tion it is claimed requires continuous alertness and application and should be
excepted from the application of Section (a-12) in accordance with the last
paragraph thereof, and be classified in a supervisory capacity and paid accord-
ingly. Decision-Claim denied. MP-MofW. Decision No. 255.
Claim for water service helpers' rate for section laborer assigned to certain
duties in connection with laying of water and sewer pipes. Decision-Board
decides carrier was within rights in assigning this section laborer to assist in
the performance of the work in question without changing the classification
and rating, but states the decision should not be construed as lending its ap-
proval to assignment of laborers at laborers' rate to perform work recognized
as that of mechanics' helpers. MP-Mof W. Decision No. 260.
Question as to proper classification and rate of pay for certain men em-
ployed at wood-preserving plant. Decision-Evidence is not sufficiently clear,
and Board does not feel justified in rendering its decision based thereon;
therefore, decides that representatives of all parties directly interested arrange
to jointly conduct an investigation on the premises of the wood-preserving
plant, and if unable to dispose of questions in dispute, the parties will jointly
resubmit the case to Labor Board for final disposition. SP-MofW. Deci-
sion No. 303.
Claim that certain employees are performing the same class of work as
cinder-pit men and should be so classified and rated. Decision-Board decides
(a) at points where there is a sufficient amount of such work to occupy the
time of one or more men, such men (or man) shall be paid the rate and
receive the overtime conditions established for ash-pit men; (b) this decision
shall be effective November 1, 1921; (c) decision not to be construed to mean
that section laborers or other laborers employed in or around shops or yards,
who are required among their other duties to remove cinders from tracks,
shall come under its provisions; (d) decision is based on particular facts in
this case. NC&StL--MofW. Decision No. 300.
28
Question as to whether certain employees assigned as engine supply men
should come under Section 8, Article III, of Decision 2. Carrier classified
these men as laborers and applied increases under Section 6, Article III. De-
cision-Employees in question come under Section 8, Article III, of Decision 2
and shall be paid accordingly. C&EI-MofW. Decision No. 331.
Question as to proper classification and rating of certain pump-house em-
ployees. During Federal control upon submission of dispute to Director Gen-
eral, Decision No. 15 was rendered classifying said employees as stationary
engineers under Section 2, Article II, of Supplement 7 to General Order 27,
but said decision was never applied by carrier. Employees now contend that
this decision of the Director General established the classification of stationary
engineers for those employees and that the rate applicable to that class under
Supplement 7, plus the increase specified in Section 1, Article 8, of Decision 2,
should apply to the employees in question. Decision-Increases specified in
Decision 2 were to be added to the rates established by or under the authority
of the United States Railroad Administration. Therefore, in view of the fact
that Director General decided the employees in question were stationary engi-
neers within the meaning and intent of Supplement 7, the Board decides that
increases specified in Decision 2 should be added to rate of pay established by
the United States Railroad Administration for stationary engineers. DL&W
-MofW. Decision No. 352.
Dispute in regard to proper classification and rating of hoisting engineers
who are engaged in transferring cars over an inclined plane and performing
other services in connection therewith, employees contending that these hoist-
ing engineers perform mechanics' work and should be paid the mechanics'
rate in accordance with Supplement 4 to G. O. 27 and the National Shop
Agreement, and under Decision 2 should have been increased 15c per hour.
Carrier states that the question now in dispute was submitted to Railway Board
of Adjustment No. 2, which Board in its decision, No. 1056, sustained the deci-
sion of the carrier in its method of classifying and rating these employees as
stationary engineers, and that in view of this fact it is not a proper submission
to the U. S. Railroad Labor Board for decision. Decision-Decision No. 2
provides that increases specified therein shall be added to the rates of pay
established by or under the authority of the U. S. Railroad Administration.
Therefore, in view of the fact that decision rendered by Board of Adjust-
ment No. 2, an authorized representative of the U. S. Railroad Administration,
sustained the carrier in its classification and rating of these positions, the
Board decides that Decision No. 2 has been properly applied and denies claim
of the employees for reclassification and rating. CRRofNJ-MofW. Deci-
sion No. 397.
Question as to whether certain specified positions of crossing watchmen
shall be excepted from the provisions of Section (a-12), Article V, of the
National Maintenance of Way Agreement. Decision-After reviewing the
evidence submitted it is the opinion of the Board that the position of the
carrier wherein it is claimed that none of the positions should be excepted
is not justified, neither is the claim of the employees that all crossings should
be excepted justified, and the Board decides that a further conference should
be held with the duly authorized representatives of the respective parties with
view to complying with the last paragraph of Section (a-12), Article V, at
which time the employees should confine their case to specified crossings or
positions which it believes merit consideration. The rates established by the
carrier in 1917 should have no bearing on the questions at issue and carrier
should consider the case on basis of conditions existing at present. DL&W-
MofW. Decision No. 406.
Question as to whether three employees at certain point now classified and
paid as drawbridge operators shall be reclassified and paid as levermen. De-
cision-Evidence indicates that duties of men in question are solely in connec-
tion with the operation of the drawbridge; that they are not required to handle
orders, or messages for trains, to either record or report the arrival, de-
parture or passing time of trains, nor to space trains; that they do not report
to nor take orders from train dispatcher; in fact there is no direct means of
connection with them by either telephone or telegraph, and that they operate
certain levers on a bridge only when the bridge is open to permit boats to
29
pass through, which operation automatically sets certain signals at both ends
of the bridge. Claim for reclassification and rate is therefore denied. NYC-
Mof W. Decision No. 420.
Claim that basis of payment for track watchmen on one division should
be changed from a monthly to an hourly basis to conform to basis of payment
applying to certain track walkers on another division of the same railroad
whose services are similar. Carrier takes the position that Section (a-12),
Article V, of the national agreement provides a monthly rate for employees
engaged in such service. Decision-Based upon evidence submitted and Board's
interpretation of Section (a-12), Article V, of the national agreement, posi-
tion of carrier is sustained. CenRRofNJ-MofW. Decision No. 589.
Question as to proper classification and rate of pay of an assistant fore-
man, March 1 to September 1, 1920, during which period carrier allowed this
employee a differential of 5c per hour over the laborers' rate in accordance
with Supplement 8 to G. O. 27. Employees contend that this employee had
previously held the position of assistant foreman and that in September, 1918,
he was paid on this position at the rate of $110 per month; that he was not
laid off account of his inefficiency but account of reduction of force, and
claim, therefore, that he should be paid at this monthly rate from March 1
to April 30, 1920, and from May 1 to September 1 the monthly rate plus the
increase under Decision No. 2. Decision-The rate established by or under
the authority of the U. S. Railroad Administration for assistant track fore-
men was 5c per hour in excess of the rates paid laborers whom they supervise.
Therefore, the position of the carrier is sustained. NYC-MofW. Decision
No. 601.
Question as to whether labor foremen in shops and shop yards, who super-
vise laborers, are covered by the National Maintenance of Way Agreement.
Case withdrawn by employees and file closed. IllCen-MofW. Decision
No. 604.
Claim of certain employee in the B. & B. department for classification of
foreman under provisions of Article III of Supplement 4 to G. O. 27. Case
withdrawn by employees and file closed. C&NW-MofW. Decision No. 710.
Claim that employee who is engaged in the operation of a truck used for
purpose of transporting maintenance of way material from one location to
another and is classified as a chauffeur should be classified as a mechanic
and increased under Section 4, Article III, of Decision 2, and decreased in
accordance with Section 9(d), Article XII, of Decision No. 147. This em-
ployee makes minor adjustments and repairs when away from the garage,
but all heavy repairs and overhauling is done by a mechanic employed in the
garage. Decision-Claim of employees denied. TerRRAof StL-MofW. De-
cision No. 711.
Dispute in regard to proper rate of pay of certain engine watchmen.
Employees claim that this engine watchman worked 12 hours each night 365
nights per year, also that he worked 12 hours each Sunday 52 Sundays per
year, equaling a total of 5,004 hours; further that Supplement 7 to G. O. 27
provided that this class of employees be paid time and one-half after 10
hours each day. On the basis of straight-time payment for 10 hours 365 days
per year, 2 hours overtime for 365 days, plus 12 hours overtime for 52 Sun-
days, a total of 5,681 hours is produced, which is the number of hours that
should be used in determining the monthly rate under the provisions of Section
(a-12), Article V, of the National Maintenance of Way Agreement, which
method produces a higher monthly rate under the provisions of Decision No. 2
than that allowed by carrier. Decision-Board decides that it was the intent
of Section (a-12), Article V, of the National Maintenance of Way Agree-
ment that the monthly rate provided therein for hourly rated employees
should be predicated upon the hours constituting the employees' assignment for
which payment was allowed when rated on the hourly basis. C&A-MofW.
Decision No. 714.
Question as to proper method of compensating certain stationary engineers
who were formerly paid on a daily basis and are now being paid on a monthly
basis covering a 365-day assignment. Employees contend that the method
arrived at in establishing the monthly rate is correct, but believe that carrier
should have put this monthly rate on a 306-day basis, instead of 365, when the
30
National Maintenance of Way Agreement went into effect in accordance with
Section (e), Article V, of said agreement. Decision-Claim of employees
denied. C&S-MofW. Decision No. 717.
Claim of roundhouse employee for classification and rate of pay as round-
house foreman or machinist as established in Supplement 4 to G. O. 27 and
subsequent wage orders. Decision-Evidence before the Board is conflicting
as to whether the employee referred to performs mechanic's work, and the
Board decides that the parties to the dispute shall arrange and jointly conduct
an investigation and if unable to reach an agreement they shall then submit the
results of their joint investigation and the Board will render its decision.
C&NW-MofW. Decision No. 778.
Claim that B. & B. foremen, water-service foremen, and assistant B. & B.
foremen, on a certain division, should receive the same monthly rate of pay
as foremen and assistant foremen in the B. & B. and water-service depart-
ments of all other divisions of the carrier's system. During Federal control
division in question was under a different Regional Director from the balance
of the system and these men were paid a lower rate of pay. On March 18,
1920, after the termination of Federal control certain increases were author-
ized for these foremen, but when Labor Board's Decision No. 2 was rendered,
in accordance therewith the increases were added to the rates which were in
effect 12:01 a. m., March 1, 1920, and the carrier takes position that the
rates now paid are correct under the orders of the Railroad Administration
and subsequent rulings of the Labor Board. Decision-Board decides that
provisions of Decision No. 2 have been complied with in applying increases
in the manner outlined. However, Principle 7, Paragraph (d), Section 307,
of Title 3 of the Transportation Act, states that "inequalities of increases
in wages or of treatment, the result of previous wage orders or adjustments,'
shall be taken into consideration, and this decision is not to be construed to
mean otherwise, or that the duly authorized representatives of the carrier
and employees may not negotiate to a conclusion rates of pay for the positions
in question. SP-MofW. Decision No. 798.
Claim of roundhouse laborers at a certain point for rate of inside hostler
from March 1, 1920, on the ground that they are required, as a part of their
duties, to handle engines in and out of the roundhouse. Evidence filed by
carrier shows that less than 25 per cent of the laborers' time is consumed in
moving locomotives, the balance of their time being consumed in roundhouse
laborers' work. Decision-Claim denied. MV-MofW. Decision No. 891.
Claim of employee for foreman's rate of pay from February 1 to December
16, 1920, employees contending that this employee should have been classified
and rated as B. & B. foreman during the period he was in charge of the gang,
when, it is alleged, he was required to supervise work usually performed by
B. & B. gangs. Carrier takes position that the work performed by the gang
over which this employee had supervision was in connection with the framing
of wings and placing of surface guards, which it is claimed does not require
men of great skill, and that the work done by this employee was far different
from that performed by B. & B. foremen. Decision-Board decides that that
portion of the dispute affecting the period February 1 to February 29, 1920,
is not within the jurisdiction of the Board, and in regard to the remainder
of the dispute the Board decides that the supervisory service performed by
the employee in question was not comparable with the service usually per-
formed by B. & B. foremen, and position of carrier is therefore sustained.
T&P-MofW. Decision No. 894.
3. Shop Forces.
Claim that certain employees, now classified as linemen, should be classified
and paid as electricians under Rules 43 and 140, and as road mechanics under
Rule 15, of the National Agreement. Decision-Employees in question are per-
forming work specified in Rule 140 and shall be classified and paid as electricians
in accordance with Rule 43; and employees regularly assigned to road service
shall be paid in accordance with Rule 15. OWRR&NCo-SC. Decision No.
212.
Claim that employee, now classified as freight-car repairer, should be
reclassified and paid as blacksmith. Carrier states his duties consist of remov-
31
ing old yokes from coupling bodies by cutting rivets with air-operated shears,
backing out with punch and sledge, and then reriveting new yokes to coupler
bodies with compressed riveters; while employees contend that in addition
thereto employee in question is also engaged in forcing out coupler yokes,
handholds, forging out hand chisels and cold chisels, and other blacksmith's
work. Decision-(a) If after proper investigation by representatives of
carrier and employees it develops that employee in question is performing
only work specified by carrier, it is decision of Board that he is properly
classified and paid; (b) if after proper investigation it is found that employee
is performing the work specified by the employees in addition to the work
specified by the carrier, it is decision of Board that he is improperly classified
and should be reclassified and paid as blacksmith. SP-SC. Decision No. 341.
Question as to whether certain telephone and telegraph equipment super-
visors shall be permitted to perform mechanics' work. Evidence indicates
that carrier employs three men who are classified as telephone and telegraph
equipment supervisors, paid a monthly salary and allowed actual expenses
while traveling on the carrier's business. Employees contend that these men
are used to perform mechanics' work in violation of Rule 32 of the national
agreement, and call attention to Decision No. 1682 rendered by Board of
Adjustment No. 2 of the U. S. Railroad Administration regarding classifica-
tion of telegraph and telephone supervisors, which decision provided in effect
that said supervisors should not be permitted to perform mechanics' work.
Decision-Labor Board does not construe language of Rule 32 as prohibiting
supervisory employees instructing other employees in the performance of their
work whereby to carry out such instructions it is necessary to perform cer-
tain mechanics' work, nor is it the Board's construction of that rule that
such supervisory employees are prohibited from performing emergency work
where mechanics are not available. It is, however, the Board's opinion, based
on the evidence before it, that the employees in question have been performing
certain work that should have been properly assigned to mechanics, which
practice is contrary to the intent of the rules and should be discontinued.
CRI&P ShopCrafts. Decision No. 405.
Question as to whether an employee engaged exclusively in the operation
of an electric crane of less than 40 tons capacity shall be classified and rated
in accordance with Rule 141 of the National Shop Agreement. Decision-
Yes, to the effective date of reclassification established by Addendum 6 to
Decision No. 222. SP-ShopCrafts. Decision No. 580.
Question as to whether certain employees known as division linemen
should be classified and paid as linemen or as electricians. Decision-Board
decides that the employees classified as and performing the work of linemen
as per Rule 141 shall be compensated on the basis of Rule 45 with the author-
ized subsequent adjustments; employees classified as linemen and required to
perform work as per Rules 140 and 141 are composite workmen and shall be
paid the rate applicable to employees specified in Rule 140. If difference of
opinion exists as to actual work being performed by these employees the
Board decides that proper joint investigation shall be made by duly author-
ized representatives of the carrier and the employees and rate of pay estab-
lished in accordance with this decision. UP-ShopCrafts. Decision No. 712.
Question (a) should certain employees employed in the B. & B. department
be classified and rated as sheet metal workers and (b) has the committee rep-
resenting the Federated Shop Crafts the right to represent these employees
in the handling of grievances, etc. Evidence in connection with this case shows
that these employees are classified and rated as bridge carpenters and work
under the supervision of the maintenance of way department, performing
certain pipe and tinners work in connection with water service and other
equipment. Employees contend that these employees are performing such
work as installing new steam pipes, water and air lines in shops, yards and
buildings, and making repairs to this class of work, as well as work of tin
smith on shop buildings and in shop yards and should, therefore, be classified
and rated in accordance with rule 126 of the shopmen's agreement. Carrier
does not deny that the employees in question are performing certain pipe and
tinners work but takes the position that their work is in conjunction with and
under the direction of the water service foreman in connection with buildings
32
maintained by M of W department and that they are not qualified sheet metal
workers, further that the Federated Shop Crafts have no jurisdiction in this
case as the work performed by the employees in question has always been under
the maintenance of way department, and that under Decision 119 an agree-
ment was consummated between the carrier and the maintenance of way or-
ganization giving that organization jurisdiction over employees performing
work similar to that performed by the employees in question. DECISION.—
(a) Yes, evidence submitted clearly indicates that these employees are perform-
ing work classified as that of sheet metal workers and should, therefore, be
classified and rated accordingly, this change in classification and rating to be
effective July 1, 1921. (b) Yes, the right of the Federated Shop Crafts to
represent craftsmen, irrespective of department or place employed, is clearly
established under Title III of the Transportation Act, 1920. Dissenting opinion
filed in this case by Board Members Elliott and Baker who take the position
(1) that in view of the line of demarcation that has been sq strongly adhered
to in the past respecting maintenance of way and maintenance of equipment
departments it is not felt that it was ever contemplated that the service of
employees who have been commonly known in the past as B. & B. mechanics.
would at any time be considered service coming within the classification of the
work of the shop trades, except perhaps in some isolated places where ex-
ceptional skill is required; "this line of demarcation having grown up through
years of experience clearly dictated that the service of employees in the two
departments was not comparable," and if contrary principle is "carried out to
its final conclusion it would ultimately result in practically all mechanics in the
maintenance of way service being classified and considered as coming within
the classification provided for the shop trades"; (2) the evidence submitted in
this case clearly shows that the employees in question are performing service
which has been recognized as that coming within the jurisdiction of the main-
tenance of way department and which has in the past been performed by em-
ployees of that department, and "experience has clearly demonstrated to the
railroads that there is a marked difference in the qualifications necessary for
the service such as is performed by the employees involved in this question and
a pipe fitter in the maintenance of equipment department"; (3) with regard to
the particular question decided, an analysis of the services performed by these
employees clearly indicates that they are performing work which for years
has been recognized as that of maintenance of way mechanics, and while some
of the operations performed by them may be operations listed in rule 126 of the
shop crafts agreement, the "complete" assignment of this man is not comparable
to the service enumerated in rule 126. Supporting opinion is also filed by the
majority in which it is stated that (1) the decision arrived at by the majority
is justified by the facts if the work performed is to be a guide rather than
a payroll classification which may or may not mean anything; that any attempt
to establish qualifications and classifications of railroad occupations on the basis
of departmental divisions and sub-divisions is wholly unsound, unwarranted and
indefensible from any point of view if employees are to be treated fairly, and
just and reasonable rates of pay and working conditions are to be established;
(2) Attention is directed to Section 3 of the general instructions contained in
Addendum 6 to Decision 222, in which reference is made to Decision 205
issued by the Labor Board, which, it is stated, clearly shows that the Labor
Board in promulgating these decisions recognized that employees performing
work enumerated in Decision 222 and its Addenda properly came within the
scope of said rules irrespective of the departments in which employed; (3)
"Considerable emphasis has been placed on the non-comparability of the service
performed by the mechanics in the respective departments. Dissenting opinion
is based largely upon general activities in the respective departments and is not
confined to the service performed by the employees in question. The service
performed by the particular employees involved in this dispute is definitely
covered by shopmen's agreement and by Addendum 6 to Decision 222 which is
an admitted fact." NP-ShCrfts. Decisions Nos. 946 and 947.
33
4. Train, Engine and Yard Service Forces.
Request for reclassification of "mine run" and "Shifter" service which would
have effect of increasing rates of pay from through freight to local. Denied.
N&W-C&T. Decision No. 60.
Request that yardmen handling work or wreck trains in yard limits be paid
yard rates instead of road rates. Denied, "work train rates of pay" shall be
paid for work train service regardless of where service is performed. N&W-
Trainmen. Decision No. 71.
Request that freight brakemen, instead of passenger brakemen, be assigned
to certain "mixed" branch line trains, which in effect is request for assignment
of two brakemen, instead of one as at present. Board decides trains in ques-
tion having been manned by one conductor and one flagman, both qualified pas-
senger men, since 1904, request for change is not now warranted. N&Ŵ–
Trainmen. Decision No. 78.
Request that a self-propelling clam shell used on main track by masonry
forces be classed as a work train. Denied. N&W-C. Decision No. 84.
Question as to proper rate of pay for crews assigned to helper service.
Board decides rate of pay for helper service shall be same as that for freight
service. LA&SL-E&F. Decision No. 104.
Where crews on certain passenger runs are required to load and unload
milk shipments, and also pick up and handle box cars loaded with milk, claim
is made that such service constitutes miscellaneous service and through freight
rates should be paid. Decision-Claim denied. NWP-C&T. Decision
No. 347.
Claim of conductors for mine and switching run rate on Elizabeth-Blue
Ridge runs. For many years turnaround service has been operated between
Elizabeth and Tate (a distance of 40 miles each way) and mine or switching
run rate of pay was applied thereon. Effective May 30, 1920, this turnaround
service was discontinued and new runs put on to operate in through freight
service between Elizabeth and Copperhill (95 miles). On June 27, 1920, they
were made to run between Elizabeth and Blue Ridge (81 miles) and have
been paid through freight rates. Conductors contend that these changed
runs should still be paid the mine or switching run rate because of doing
station switching. Carrier takes the position that the only switching required
is that incident to destination placement, or pick up for forward movement
in the handling of short loads and empties in addition to through loads to
and from stations, and that switching of this kind should not be classified as
mine or switching run work as covered by Section (d), Article IV, of the
existing agreement, and the through freight rate is therefore properly applied.
Decision-Under the provisions of the schedule and the instructions issued
when the straightaway runs were inaugurated, supplemented by the actual
switching done at stations, position of employees is sustained. L&N-C&T.
Decision No. 481.
Request for outside hostler rate for hostlers making main-track movement.
Carrier takes position that it does not understand that incidental use of the
main track within the engine-house territory, such as moving or handling an
engine within coaling station, ash pit, ready track, etc., places such work
within the classification of outside hostlers. Decision-Where required to
handle engines between passenger stations, engine-house or yards or on main
track, rates for outside hostlers shall apply. Labor Board has no jurisdiction
over any case which occurred prior to end of Federal control. P&R-E&F.
Decision No. 483.
Question as to proper rate of pay for footboard yardmasters under Deci-
sion No. 2. Carrier states that prior to Federal control it made no distinction
in its foremen and never recognized any footboard yardmasters. When Sup-
plement 22 to G. O. 27 was issued by the U. S. Railroad Administration it
put into effect the differential of 40c to one of its yard foreman's rates. When
Decision No. 2 came out under Section 4, Article VII thereof, reading
"superseding rates established by or under the authority of the U. S. Rail-
road Administration, and in lieu thereof, etc.," it interpreted the words
"superseded" and "in lieu thereof" to mean the elimination of the differential
rate which was established by the Railroad Administration. Decision—If the
34
engine foreman in question is required to perform duties of yardmaster in
addition to performing duties as engine foreman, 40c per day in excess of
foreman's rates is just and reasonable and should be applied. C&S-Tr.
Decision No. 484.
Dispute in regard to right of a maintenance of way work-train conductor
to have general charge of both train operation and maintenance of way work.
Decision-Based upon evidence submitted and applicable only to case in ques-
tion, Board decides that practice followed by carrier is not in violation of any
rules or agreements effecting maintenance of way employees, and therefore
sustains carrier's position. CenRRof NJ-Mof W. Decision No. 646.
Question as to proper classification of employees now classified as "switch-
man and baggage master." Prior to August 30, 1920, these employees were
classified as baggage masters, and for a number of years they were regularly
assigned to handling several main-line switches per day for the movement
of certain regular passenger trains. On August 30, 1920, at the request
of the trainmen's committee, following memorandum 16-27 of the United
States Railroad Administration, which provides "the term 'switch tender'
(ground switchman) is understood to apply to employees assigned to handling
one or more main-line or lead switches in connection with terminals wherever
yard engines are maintained," the payroll classification of these positions was
changed to "switchman and baggage master" and rate of pay was increased
in accordance with rate applicable to switch tenders under Decision No. 2.
Employees claim the term "switch tender," as used in memorandum referred
to, means an employee who is assigned to handling a main-line or lead
switch, and that the employees involved in this dispute are not so assigned in
connection with a terminal where yard engines are maintained, and further
contend that these employees devote four or more hours of their time to the
work assigned to baggage masters, and should therefore be classified as bag-
gage masters. Carrier takes position that while employees in question do not
handle switches for yard engines or freight trains, they do handle one or
more main-line switches in connection with a terminal where a yard engine is
maintained, and therefore come within the scope of the memorandum of the
Railroad Administration referred to. Decision-Position of carrier sustained.
B&M-BroRRStaEmp. Decision No. 765.
Claim that work of handling baggage on certain trains should be assigned
to employees on the trains' seniority roster. For some time after the trains
in question were put on, a brakeman was used from the trainmen's seniority
roster to handle the baggage in connection with his duties as brakeman. The
trainmen's committee made claim for additional compensation for the brake-
man on account of this additional service, which request was denied and the
duties of baggageman transferred to the train porter. Employees contend
that the work of handling baggage on these runs should be handled by train-
men shown on the seniority roster and paid at the rate shown for baggage-
men in the agreement. Carrier takes the position that baggage handled is
not sufficient to justify the employment of baggageman and that upon the
trainmen objecting to performing service it was transferred to the train porter,
who can handle it without any interference with his other duties, and further
that while the agreement specifies the rate to be paid baggagemen, there is
nothing in said agreement which gives these classes of employees claim on this
service, and as baggagemen are not employed there is no reason for the appli-
cation of the baggagemen's rate. Decision-Board decides that the work of
handling baggage on the train in question should be paid at the rate shown
for baggagemen in the agreement, and the former practice of having work
performed by a trainman so classified is approved. MK&T-CTE&F. Deci-
sion No. 772.
Claim of roundhouse laborers at a certain point for rate of inside hostler
from March 1, 1920, on the ground that they are required, as a part of their
duties, to handle engines in and out of the, roundhouse. Evidence filed by
carrier shows that less than 25 per cent of the laborers' time is consumed in
moving locomotives, the balance of their time being consumed in roundhouse
laborers' work. Decision-Claim denied. MV-MofW. Decision No. 891.
35
5. Signal Forces.
Claim that certain employees, now classified and paid as helpers, should
be reclassified and paid as assistant signalmen or assistant signal maintainers,
in accordance with Sec. 3, Art. I, of National Signalmen's Agreement. Deci-
sion-Board feels intent of Sec. 3 was to establish a reasonable number of
positions of assistant signalmen or assistant signal maintainers, which em-
ployees would be in training for positions of signalmen or signal maintainers
during four-year period referred to therein, and suggests that management
and representatives of employees confer in effort to reach agreement as to
establishment of such positions, such reclassification to be made affecting posi-
tions now existing and shall not operate to increase the force. CCC&StL-
Sig. Decision No. 226.
Dispute in regard to right of carrier to make certain changes in its signal
organization resulting in the demotion of certain assistant signalmen to help-
ers. Decision-Board is of the opinion that the carrier was acting within its
rights and that the classification and seniority provisions of the agreement not
only permit but specifically provide for classifications and rates of pay based
upon the character of work performed, and so long as the rate of pay is in
conformity with the classification and the employees are not required to per-
form work that comes under a classification carrying a higher rate, and the
seniority provisions of the agreement are observed, there is no just cause for
complaint. On the other hand, however, the Board is of the opinion that
better results would be obtained if the carrier conferred with the duly author-
ized representatives of the employees prior to placing in effect a reorganization
of forces such as occurred in this case. The Board decides, therefore, that
the carrier has not violated the provisions of the agreement, provided the
employees in question are not assigned to or required to perform the work of
maintainers or assistant maintainers; further, that the demoted employees
shall be credited with the full time served as assistant signal maintainers and
rated on that basis when again assigned as assistant maintainers. B&O—Sig.
Decision No. 709.
Claim that certain employee now classified and rated as signal maintainer
should be reclassified and rated as leading maintainer in accordance with Sec-
tion 3, Article V, of the Signalmen's National Agreement. Decision-Board
decides that this employee is not a leading maintainer within the meaning and
intent of the agreement and claim is therefore denied. NYNH&H-Sig.
Decision No. 800.
Question as to proper rate of pay under Decision No. 2 for certain low-
voltage signalmen and signal maintainers. These employees were rated in
accordance with Section (1-a), Article II of Supplement 4 to G. O. 27
(58c). When Interpretation 2 to Supplement 4 was issued, employees con-
tended that the men referred to were composite mechanics, and should have
been paid as provided in Section 1, Article II of Supplement 4, namely, 68c
per hour. The carrier disagreed with this contention, and joint submission
was filed with the Railroad Administration. On December 20, 1919, the
Railroad Administration authorized the application of the 4c per hour speci-
fied in the National Shopcrafts' Agreement to the rates of signal depart-
ment employees, covered by Supplement 4 to G. O. 27, establishing the rates
of 62c and 72c per hour, respectively. On February 25, 1920, Supplement
28 to G. O. 27 was issued, which provided that signalmen and signal main-
tainers covered by Signalmen's Agreement, who were classified and paid
in accordance with Section (5-a), Article I of Supplement 4, should be
paid 68c per hour. This latter rate was the rate these employees were re-
ceiving at the termination of Federal control, and to which the increase
specified in Decision No. 2 was added, establishing a rate of 81c per hour.
On November 2, 1920, the decision of the Director General of Railroads
was received in connection with the submission made, which decision provided
that "the employees in question are properly classified as signal maintainers.
They perform the duties of composite mechanics and shall be rated and paid
in accordance with Interpretation 2 of Supplement 4 to G. O. 27, from the
effective date of said supplement." Employees contended that this decision
provided for the employees in question the rate of 85c per hour. The carrier
36
did not concur in the views of the employees, taking the position that these
employees were a composite of low-voltage linemen and signal maintainers,
and that under their interpretation of the Director General's decision, the
employees were being properly compensated. The employees objected to the
carrier's interpretation of the Director General's decision, and the matter was
again handled with the United States Railroad Administration, and is still
pending before the Administration. Decision-(a) Based upon evidence in
this case, the Board decides that if any difference of opinion exists as to
actual work being performed by these employees, a proper joint investiga-
tion should be made by the duly authorized representatives of the carrier
and the employees, and rate of pay established accordingly; (b) in regard
to application of Decision No. 2, the Board does not feel that the question
is properly before it, in that the matter is still one of dispute between the
employees and the United States Railroad Administration. If, after definite
understanding or ruling from the Administration, it is the desire of em-
ployees to again bring the matter to the attention of the Board, such pro-
cedure may be followed after proper compliance with the provisions of the
Transportation Act. SP-Sig. Decision No. 903.
6. Stationary Engine and Boilerroom Employees.
Question as to proper classification and pay of certain stationary engineers,
employees contending that men in question are performing work coming within
the classification of skilled mechanics specified in shop-crafts agreement. De-
cision--In view of willingness expressed by carrier at oral hearing conducted
by the Board to appoint a committee for purpose of accompanying a committee
of employees to the plants involved for purpose of ascertaining the actual
work being performed, and further in view of the fact that there has been
no agreement between the complainant organization and the carrier as to
actual work performed by men in question, the Board decides that a joint
investigation shall be made to determine the character of the work being
performed by the employees in question, in which investigation representatives
of all interested crafts shall be given an opportunity to participate. If after
such investigation it is found agreement cannot be reached, the matter can
be again submitted to the Board in the manner outlined in Section 301 of the
Transportation Act. NYC-IUofSandOEng. Decisions Nos. 415, 416,
and 417.
7. Telegraph Forces.
Question as to right of carrier to abolish positions designated as "agent
telegraphers" and establish_positions of "agent non-telegraphers" at the same
point. Employees state that positions in question were designated in the
telegraphers' schedule as "agent telegraphers," and that the action of the
carrier in removing the wires from the station, changing the classification of
the positions, reducing the rate of pay and changing the hours of service from
8-within-9 hours to 8-within-12 hours was in conflict with Rule 24 of the
agreement. Decision-Board decides that action of the carrier in this case
is not a violation of Rule 24 of the agreement. Wabash RR-Tel. Decision
No. 530.
Where position of operator in the general telegraph office at a certain
point was abolished and the work of said position assigned to the operators
in the yard office at the same point, claim is made that the operators in the
yard office are entitled to the rate paid the position abolished. Decision-
Claim denied. EP&SW-Tel. Decision No. 609.
Question as to whether certain agency, classified by the carrier as super-
visory agency, shall be included within the scope of the telegraphers' agree-
ment. Decision-It is admitted by the employees that in the negotiations in
November, 1919, supervisory agents were not included in the agreement, and
it further appears that under date of August 9, 1920, the employees advised
the carrier of their willingness to consider this station a supervisory agency
with the understanding that it would remain in the agreement as such. The
Board therefore decides that the station in question shall not be included
within the scope of the agreement and the claim of employees is denied.
AT&SF-Tel. Decision No. 873.
37
Certain agencies which were included in telegraphers' agreement were re-
classified as supervisory agents by carrier and certain changes made in their
wages and working conditions with the understanding that under the desig-
nation of supervisory agents they would not be subject to the provisions
of the telegraphers' agreement. The agreement referred to contains a provision
that it shall remain in effect until 30 days notice has been given by either
party to the other party requesting a change in same, and employees are
contending that as carrier failed to serve the 30 days notice or hold conference
with the employees before changing the classification of the agents referred
to it violated the provisions of their agreement and they, therefore, request
that rates of pay and working conditions of the agents at the stations in
question as established by the agreement be restored and the employees
affected reimbursed for monetary loss sustained. Carrier takes position that
growth of business at the stations in question justified the rearrangement
of station forces and that duties and responsibilities of the former agents
were changed sufficiently to warrant designating them as supervisory agents;
that supervisory agents do not come within the scope of the Transportation
Act or the jurisdiction of the Labor Board and that the telegraphers' com-
mittee had no right to attempt to represent them. Decision-Board states
that the question presented to it in this dispute is whether or not the action.
of the carrier was in violation of the terms of the agreement between the
carrier and its employees in telegraph service, and it is decided that under
the rule of the agreement the agents at the stations named should not have
been excluded from the provisions thereof until 30 days notice had been
served upon the representatives of the employees in telegraph service, re-
questing that the change be made, or until conference had been held with
the employees' committee, or until handled in the manner provided in the
Transportation Act. The Board does not undertake to pass on whether or
not these agents are supervisory, but merely that in view of said positions
having been included in the agreement between the employees and the carrier,
they should not have been excluded therefrom unless or until the provisions.
of the agreement and the Transportation Act have been complied with. GCL
-Tel. Decision No. 930.
8. Express Employees.
Dispute as to proper classification of certain express messenger runs,
employees contending that the runs in question are turnaround runs and the
messengers thereon should be paid in accordance with Rule 76 of the express
agreement. Decision-Claim denied. ARECo—Clks.
ARECO-Clks. Decision No. 240.
Question as to whether certain position in express office classified as clerk
and stenographer is included within the scope of the express employees' agree-
ment, as defined in Rule 1, Article I, thereof. Employees contend that in
the office in question there are employed, in addition to the chief clerk, a
secretary to the superintendent, a payroll clerk, two miscellaneous clerks and
two stenographers, and that under the agreement there should be only two
personal office force positions in said office, viz., chief clerk and one private
stenographer, and that the duties of the position in question consisting of
checking payroll accounts are not of a confidential nature which could be
construed to come within the term "personal office force." Decision-Board
decides that the position in question does not come within the scope of the
agreement referred to, and claim of the employees is denied. ARECO-
Clerks. Decision No. 370.
Dispute with reference to proper compensation of express messengers on
trains operated between certain points. Case withdrawn by employees and file
closed. ARECo-Clerks. Decision No. 615.
Claim that certain employee now classified as platform man should be re-
classified and paid the rate for assorters. Decision-Claim denied. ARE-
Clerks. Decision No. 665.
Dispute with reference to proper rate of pay of stenographer at a certain
point. Decision-At hearing conducted by the Board both parties expressed
a willingness to conduct a further joint investigation with a view to developing
certain information which may enable them to reach a settlement of the dis-
38
pute. With this understanding, dispute is remanded to parties at interest and
file closed. ARE-Clerks. Decision No. 669.
Claim that certain employee classified and paid as way-bill writer was en-
gaged in billing of freight and performing work similar to that performed by
employees classified and paid as way-bill clerks, and that this employee should
be reimbursed for difference between rate of pay she received as way-bill
writer and rate of pay she would have received as way-bill clerk during the
period of her employment. Decision-Claim of employees is denied. ARE—
Clerks. Decision No. 688.
Dispute with reference to proper rate of pay of certain express driver,
whom it was claimed was paid a rate of pay less than regular rate of the
position he held. Carrier states that there was in effect for many years a
graduating scale of wages under which there existed a difference of $5.00
between starting rate and the rate after three months service and a difference.
of $15.00 per month between the starting rate and the rate paid after twelve
months service, and in the application of Supplement 19 to G. O. 27 and Decis-
ions Nos. 3 and 217 of the Labor Board the increases and decreases provided
therein were applied to the graduating scale of wages in existence. Decision-
Position of carrier sustained. ARE-Clerks. Decision No. 697.
Dispute with reference to proper classification and rate of pay of a plat-
form employee, who during a portion of his time uses a horse and wagon in
the performance of his duties, by reason of which contention is made that he
should be classified and paid as driver. Carrier states that employee referred
to was primarily a platform employee under supervision of a foreman at the
point employed and that he was furnished with a horse-and wagon to use in
connection with transferring freight at the depot in lieu of a fourwheeled
manually propelled truck, while the regular drivers are required to pick up
and deliver freight from shippers and consignees and perform such wagon
transfer as is necessary between the various express depots in the city, and
that the claimant is not performing the same work within the meaning and in-
tent of Section (b), Article I of Section 19 to G. O. 27. Decision-Claim of
employees is denied. ARE-Clerks. Decision No. 703.
Dispute with reference to proper rate of pay for employee filling position
designated as assistant in-freight clerk, which position paid less than rate paid
certain other employees in the same office, who it is contended were doing the
same work. Carrier contends that employee in question was not performing
the same work as the other employees in the office in question and that on the
contrary the differential in the rate of pay to which exception is taken has
always existed and is fully justified by the conditions of employment and hours
of service. Position has since been abolished. Decision-Claim of employees
denied. ARE-Clks. Decision No. 704.
The
Dispute with reference to proper compensation for employees engaged as
attendants on trains on which there were no regular express messengers.
employees contend that while they were performing this service they were
in full charge of the shipments in their care, and should, therefore, be paid
the express messengers rate. Carrier states that these men were simply acting
as attendants; that they did not perform any work analogous to that of mes-
sengers, except to carry waybills and remain with the car to protect it in the
event of its being cut out of the train. In other words, they were performing
guard duty and were properly paid in accordance with Rule 73, Section (c) of
the agreement. Decision-Claim of employees denied. ARE-Clks. Decis-
ion No. 728.
Dispute with reference to classification and rate of pay for certain transfer
clerks. No facts given. Case withdrawn by employees and file closed. ARE
-Clks. Decision No. 846.
CLERICAL AND STATION FORCES.
Increases granted by Labor Board to-See "Art. II, Dec. 2." See "Art. II,
Dec. 5."
Decreases authorized by Labor Board covering-See "Art. II, Dec. 147,
Add. 1 and 2 to Dec. 147, 214, 215, 217 and 228."
Appplication of Dec. 2 to-See "Decision No. 2-Application of."
39
Pay for time lost due to sickness and other personal reasons.-See "Time
lost-pay for."
Right of "general office" and "line" clerks to negotiate separate agreements
on rules and working agreements. See "Representation Rights."
COAL BUNK LABORERS.
Claim that "coal bunk laborers" who in the application of Dec. 2 were in-
creased 8½c per hour under Sec. 8, Art. III, should have been increased under
Sec. 8, Art. III (10c per hour). Denied. HV-MofW. Decision No. 41.
COAL CHUTE MEN. Application of Decision 2 to-See "Decision 2-
Application of.”
COLORED TRAIN EMPLOYEES-USE OF AS FLAGMEN.
Complaint against continuance of trainmen's schedule rule relating to re-
duction of force and filling of vacancies, and which rule specifies that negroes
are not to be used as flagmen, except that those in that service may be retained
therein with their seniority rights; it being alleged that in some instances
senior white flagmen bid in positions as head brakemen for purpose of displac-
ing colored head brakemen with less service age, leaving vacant position as
flagman, for which position colored men are not eligible, which is then bid in
by junior white men. Decision-After careful consideration of evidence sub-
mitted, the Board decides that the schedule containing the rule in question was
negotiated by representatives of a majority of the class of employees interested.
The Board cannot, however, approve of any discrimination in favor of or
against either white or colored employees in the application of the provisions of
the rule. Complaint is dismissed and request denied. IC-Y&MV—Assn.
Col. Ry. Train. Decision No. 307.
COMBINATION SERVICE. (See also "Composite Service.")
Where yard conductor performing work train service during portion of his
yard day made claim for highest rate (work train) for days on which the two
classes of service was required and which claim as presented was allowed, claim
is now made for back pay to January, 1915, for all occasions on which such com-
bination service was performed and for which only yard rates had been paid.
Board without jurisdiction, matter having occurred before passage of Trans-
portation Act. N&W-Tr. Decision No. 79.
Claim of passenger brakeman for one day's pay at local freight rates, account
being required to shift freight cars in order to turn their passenger train on wye
at end of trip. Board without jurisdiction, matter occurring prior to passage
of Transportation Act. N&W-Tr. Decision No. 75.
Where crews on certain passenger runs are required to load and unload
milk shipments, and also pick up and handle box cars loaded with milk, claim
is made that such service constitutes miscellaneous service and through freight
rates should be paid. Decision-Claim denied. NWP-C&T. Decision No.
347.
Claim of conductor, regularly assigned to combination service consisting of
short branch run and yard switching work for which through freight rates are
being paid, for work train rate of pay on certain day when required to unload
car of cinders within the yard switching limits. Decision-Claim denied.
L&N_C&T. Decision No. 323.
COMMON LABOR. Reducing pay of—See “Reductions of Rates of Pay."
COMPLAINTS. Method of presentation to Labor Board-See "Order
No. 1."
COMPOSITE SERVICE.
Where section foreman, in connection with other duties, is required to
supervise coal chute operations, claim is made that under Section (p), Art. V,
of national M. of W. agreement, such employee is a composite worker and
entitled to rate of pay applicable to coal house foremen. Decision-Claim
40
denied; preponderating work of the foreman in question is that of section
foreman, and in accordance with Section (p), of Art. V, should be classified
and paid as such. C&NW-MofW. Decision No. 250.
Question as to whether certain employees known as division linemen should
be classified and paid as linemen or as electricians. Decision-Board decides
that the employees classified as and performing the work of linemen as per rule
141 shall be compensated on the basis of rule 45 with the authorized subse-
quent adjustments; employees classified as linemen and required to perform
work as per rule 140 and 141 are composite workmen and shall be paid the rate
applicable to employees specified in rule 140. If difference of opinion exists as
to actual work being performed by these employees the Board decides that
proper joint investigation shall be made by duly authorized representatives of
the carrier and the employees and rate of pay established in accordance with
this decision. UP-Shop Crafts. Decision No. 712.
Claim of employee regularly assigned as shop laborer for regular boiler
washer helper's rate of pay while doing relief work as such. Employees are
claiming that when this employee is assigned to assist boiler washer in washing
of locomotive boilers that Section (p), Article V of the national maintenance
of way agreement should apply. Carrier recognizes classification and rating
of boilermaker helpers as applying to employees regularly assigned to assist
boiler washer but does not construe the agreement as prohibiting the use of
shop laborers occasionally performing this class of work and takes the position
that the work of boiler washer helper is not covered by the maintenance of
way agreement. Decision-Board decides that a laborer assigned to perform
the work of a helper coming under the provisions of the Federated Shop Crafts'
agreement shall be paid as provided by that agreement. L&N-MofW. De-
cision No. 779.
Dispute in regard to application of minimum rate of composite mechanics to
certain signal maintainers with less than 4 years experience who were consid-
ered composite mechanics under rulings of the Railroad Administration. De-
cision-Evidence indicates that employees in question were classified as com-
posite mechanics in accordance with Interpretation 2 to Supplement 4 to G. O.
27. Employees who were receiving, prior to July 25, 1918, an amount equal to
or in excess of minimum or hiring rate paid any craft represented in the class
of which they were composite shall be paid the minimum or hiring rate of the
highest rated craft represented in such composite service. Employees, who
prior to July 25, 1918, were receiving a lower rate than that paid in any of the
crafts of which they were a composite shall receive the step rate in accordance
with their years of experience as outlined in Section (5-a), Supplement 4 to
G. O. 27 with subsequent adjustments. If this decision has effect of increasing
rates of any employees such increased rates shall be made effective July 1,
1921. C&A-Sig. Decision No. 795.
Question as to proper rate of pay under Decision 2 for certain low-voltage
signalmen and signal maintainers. These employees were rated in accordance
with Section (1-a), Article II of Supplement 4 to G. O. 27 (58c). When
Interpretation 2 to Supplement 4 was issued, employees contended that the
men referred to were composite mechanics, and should have been paid
as provided in Section 1, Article II of Supplement 4, namely, 68c per hour.
The carrier disagreed with this contention, and joint submission was filed
with the Railroad Administration. On December 20, 1919, the Railroad Ad-
ministration authorized the application of the 4c per hour specified in the
National Shopcrafts' Agreement to the rates of signal department employees,
covered by Supplement 4 to G. O. 27, establishing the rates of 62c and 72c
per hour, respectively. On February 25, 1920, Supplement 28 to G. O. 27
was issued, which provided that signalmen and signal maintainers covered
by Signalmen's Agreement, who were classified and paid in accordance with
Section (5-a), Article I of Supplement 4, should be paid 68c per hour.
This latter rate was the rate these employees were receiving at the termination
of Federal control, and to which the increase specified in Decision No. 2 was
added, establishing a rate of 81c per hour. On November 2, 1920, the decision
of the Director General of Railroads was received in connection with the
submission made, which decision provided that "the employees in question are
properly classified as signal maintainers. They perform the duties of com-
posite mechanics and shall be rated and paid in accordance with Interpretation
41
2 of Supplement 4 to G. O. 27, from the effective date of said supplement."
Employees contended that this decision provided for the employees in question
the rate of 85c per hour. The carrier did not concur in the views of the
employees, taking the position that these employees were a composite of low-
voltage linemen and signal maintainers, and that under their interpretation
of the Director General's decision, the employees were being properly com-
pensated. The employees objected to the carrier's interpretation of the
Director General's decision, and the matter was again handled with the
United States Railroad Administration, and is still pending before the Ad-
ministration. Decision-(a) Based upon evidence in this case, the Board
decides that if any difference of opinion exists as to actual work being per-
formed by these employees, a proper joint investigation should be made by the
duly authorized representatives of the carrier and the employees, and rate of
pay established accordingly; (b) in regard to application of Decision No. 2,
the Board does not feel that the question is properly before it, in that the
matter is still one of dispute between the employees and the United States
Railroad Administration. If, after definite understanding or ruling from the
Administration, it is the desire of employees to again bring the matter to
the attention of the Board, such procedure may be followed after proper
compliance with the provisions of the Transportation Act. SP-Sig. De-
cision No. 903.
CONCERT. Handling negotiations in-See “Negotiations-Joint Handling
of."
CONSIST OF CREWS.
Request that freight brakemen, instead of passenger brakemen be assigned
to certain "mixed" branch line trains, which in effect is request for assignment
of two brakemen, instead of one as at present. Board decides trains in question
having been manned by one conductor and one flagman, both qualified passenger
men, since 1904, request for change is not now warranted. N&W-Tr. Deci-
sion No. 78.
CONSOLIDATION OF OFFICES-POSITIONS.
Claim of crew caller in yardmaster's office, whose position was abolished
for right to exercise his seniority to displace crew caller in motive power de-
partment at same point. Employees contend that action of carrier in abolish-
ing the position of crew caller in the yardmaster's office constituted a consolida-
tion of departments as referred to in rule 26 of the clerks' national agreement
and that the crew caller in question should be permitted to exercise his seniority
rights over junior employees in accordance with this rule. Carrier states that
work attached to the positions of crew callers in the yardmaster's office de-
creased sufficient to permit abolishing the position and assigning the work to
the engine crew callers in the motive power department, which action it claims
constituted a reduction of force under rules 21 and 27 of the national agree-
ment which were strictly adhered to in making the change. Decision-Claim
of employees denied. StLSW-Clerks. Decision No. 462.
CONTINUOUS TIME.
Claim under specific rule for continuous time while tied up at terminal or
intermediate point at which eating and sleeping accommodations cannot be se-
cured. Claim denied, account point being where such accommodations can or-
dinarily be secured. D&SL-EFCT. Decision Nos. 29 and 30.
Question as to whether employees sent out from headquarters to do work
without outfit cars are entitled to continuous time until return to assembling
point, including all time traveling and waiting. Decision-No; payment should
be made in accordance with Section (i), Article V, of National MofW Agree-
ment. MC-MofW. Decision No. 208.
Question as to rules in Signalmen's National Agreement applicable to cer-
tain signalmen who, while assigned to regular eight hour day on hourly basis
with regular starting and quitting time, are required at least once a week to go
out on road to distribute or assist in distribution of batteries to various signals
over their territory, returning to home station same day. On such occasions
employees frequently consume several hours traveling and waiting in addition
to their regular day for which they receive no extra compensation except for
42
actual service performed. Claim is made for continuous time from time re-
quired to report to time they return to home station whether waiting or travel-
ing, in accordance with Sec. 17, Art. II, of the agreement. Decision-Board
decides that Sections 18 and 20, Art. II, of the agreement referred to, which
have reference to pay of men sent out on road, are applicable to the service in
question. SP-Sig. Decision No. 293.
Claim of passenger brakeman for pay on a continuous time basis for
period of 46 hours tied up between terminals account of washout, in accord-
ance with schedule rule which provides that passenger day begins at time of
reporting for duty for the initial trip and ends when relieved from duty.
Carrier paid for the service under rule providing that when trainmen are
delayed between terminals account of wreck, washout, or snow blockade, they
shall be paid for the first 8 hours held at pro rata rate in addition to time
or miles made that day, and for each succeeding day will be allowed not less
than 100 miles at the rate for class of service in which engaged. Decision—
Claim of employees denied. GN-C&T. Decision No. 718.
CONTRACT WORK.
Prior to issuance of National Agreement carrier contracted out certain
roundhouse work, such as grease cup filling, boiler washing, boiler washing
helping, filling up boilers, engine wiping, fire knocking, fire building, etc. After
effective date of Agreement question of applying the provisions of said agree-
ment to these men employed by the contractor was taken up with the manage-
ment by the representatives of the shop crafts, but agreement could not
be reached and matter was submitted to U. S. R. R. Administration and
decision received to effect that it was not purpose of the agreement to per-
mit such work as filling grease cups to be contracted for. However, not-
withstanding this decision, road failed to apply the National Agreement
to said employees and the employees involved finally went out on strike.
During strike the foremen of the machinists on each of the three shifts in the
roundhouse were required to perform the work of the strikers. This was pro-
tested by the committee representing the machinists and conference was held
at which the committee was advised that any employees who refused to obey
orders or in any manner interfered with the employees of the contractor would
be dismissed from the service. The machinists, thereupon held a meeting and
voted that they would perform no work unless the foremen in question were re-
lieved from performing the work let out to and coming under the jurisdiction of
the contractor. This information was given to management, who notified the
men "they should consider themselves dismissed and out of the service." Later
conferences were held and the men resumed work. All these men continued to
perform their regular duties for several days, when notice was given by the
management that investigation would be held, and 18 machinists and 18 helpers
of first shift and 6 machinists and 5 helpers of third shift were discharged.
Further conferences were held at which road agreed to take back all except
one machinist. Request is made for reinstatement and pay for time lost of all
machinists and helpers. Decision-In judgment of Board both parties were
responsible for the conditions resulting in this dispute, the carrier being pri-
marily responsible because of failure to put into effect the rates of pay and
conditions of employment provided by National Agreement and interpretations
thereon; therefore, all machinists and helpers discharged shall be reinstated
with seniority unimpaired, but without pay for time lost. DM&N-SC. De-
cision No. 145.
Question as to right of carrier to lay off carpenter gangs and contract for
building of new depot by a construction company, employees contending that
the national agreement covers all bridge and building work; that these car-
penters are employed for and assigned to that particular kind of work; that
they have seniority rights to this work over any construction company, and
that they should, therefore, be paid their regular salaries for length of time
depot was under construction. Decision-Board decides carrier did not vio-
late the provisions of the agreement, and claim is therefore denied. This
decision applicable only to case in question. M&O-MofW. Decision No. 328.
Request for reinstatement of foreman, and pay for time lost of said
43
foreman and other members of his gang for period out of service from April
13 to May 25, 1920, when they quit the service of their own accord, refusing
to perform certain work which had been contracted out and which work the
contractor was unable to perform with his own men account of a strike of
city carpenters. The contract when made stipulated that in event the strike
had not terminated in time for said contractor to perform the work that the
carrier would furnish the necessary labor and the contractor would furnish
necessary material and supervision. When the railroad employees were de-
tailed to perform the work and learned that they were filling the place of
men out on strike and that work was to be supervised by contractor, they
refused to perform the work under such conditions, the foreman agreeing with
his men and quitting the service with them. After investigation, the men were
reinstated, and claim is now made for pay for time lost and for reinstatement
of the foreman. Decision-Board decides upon evidence submitted that men
in question, including foreman, quit the service of their own accord, and
therefore, denies payment for time lost. It takes cognizance of statement
embodied in agreed statement of facts that the foreman has not on his own
part requested reinstatement or reemployment, or signified to any official of
carrier that anyone else was authorized to do so in his behalf, and decides,
therefore, that carrier is justified in position taken. CCC&StL-MofW.
Decision No. 257.
Dispute regarding extension of practice of contracting work to apply to
track forces-no facts given. Case withdrawn by employees and file closed.
P&LE-Amer Fedof RRWorkers. Decision No. 596.
Where at certain point the express agent is allowed a flat sum per month
in addition to his commission, in consideration of which he furnishes suitable
help to handle the express business on shuttle trains between certain points,
employees contend that payment of a flat sum to this agent for the purpose
of maintaining shuttle service is not in accordance with the spirit and intent
of the agreement. Carrier takes position that they were unable to secure any
applicants when vacancies on this one run were bulletined and that it was
deemed expedient and conducive to the best interests of the service to have
the contract agent perform the service and employ any additional help neces-
sary in connection therewith, and claim therefore that the employee on this
shuttle train is not a bona fide employee of the express company and is not
subject to the provisions of Decision No. 3 or any other decision or order
affecting working conditions of employees in express service. Decision-Posi-
tion of carrier is sustained. ARECo-Clks. Decision No. 701.
COURT SERVICE.
Question as to how Dec. 2 shall be applied to rates for engineers and fire-
men in yard and road service, also hostlers and hostler helpers, when attending
court. Decision-Question relates to increasing rates and special allowances
which are closely interwoven with certain rules, and which rules will be given
consideration by Board when question of rules is taken up for decision. L&N-
E&F. Int. 9. SAL-E&F. Int. 12 to Decision No. 2.
CREW CONSIST. See "Consist of Crews."
CROSSING WATCHMEN.
Claim that increases provided in Sec. 7, Art. III, Decision 2, should be added
to rates established by R. R. Administration for the men specified on the eight-
hour basis; and for employees required to work over eight hours per day. An
amount should be added per month equivalent to what should be figured on basis
of pro rata rate for ninth and tenth hours and thereafter at rate of time and
one-half. Decision-Int. 1 to Decision 2 clearly outlines the intent of Sec. 7,
Art. III, Decision 2 with reference to application of increases to monthly rated
employees, and should govern in this dispute. DL&W-Mof W. Decision No.
117. CI&L-MofW. Decision No. 118.
Question as to whether certain specified positions of crossing watchmen
shall be excepted from the provisions of Section (a-12), Article V, of the
National Maintenance of Way Agreement. Decision-After reviewing the
44
evidence submitted it is the opinion of the Board that the position of the
carrier wherein it is claimed that none of the positions should be excepted
is not justified, neither is the claim of the employees that all crossings should
be excepted justified, and the Board decides that a further conference should
be held with the duly authorized representatives of the respective parties with
view to complying with the last paragraph of Section (a-12), Article V, at
which time the employees should confine their case to specified crossings or
positions which it believes merit consideration. The rates established by the
carrier in 1917 should have no bearing on the questions at issue and carrier
should consider the case on basis of conditions existing at present. DL&W—
MofW. Decision No. 406.
DAILY GUARANTEES. See "Guarantees."
DATE OF TERMINATION OF PAYROLL WEEK. Changes in—
See "Payroll Week-Changes in Date of Termination of."
DATES.
Effective.
1. of Decision 2-See "Sec. 1, Art. XII, Dec. 2."
2. of increases granted by Fort Smith & Western Ry.-See "Decision 181."
DEADHEADING.
Question as to proper rule covering deadhead service. Board decides rule
cited in decision to be just and reasonable. NYC-E&F. Decision No. 10.
Question as to how Decision 2 shall be applied to existing rule covering
minimum allowance for engineers and firemen when not used in other service
during calendar day on which deadhead trips are made. Decision-Question
relates to increasing arbitrary rates and special allowances which are closely
interwoven with certain rules, and which rules will be given consideration
when question is taken up for decision.
taken up for decision. L&N-E&F. Int. 9 to Decision
No. 2.
Question as to whether increases granted in Article VI of Dec. 2 should
be applied to rates in effect covering_deadhead service, which rates were
established under authority of U. S. Railroad Administration as being the
same as the minimum freight and passenger rates. Decision-Yes. AT&SF-
EF. Int. 16 to Decision No. 2.
Question as to meaning of term "outlying points" as used in deadhead
rules reading in part "When deadheading to relieve men at outlying points
who obtain leave of absence of their own volition, one-half pay will be allowed,
except in case of sickness when full pay will be allowed." Committee con-
tends "outlying point" is an intermediaate point between terminals, while road
contends that all deadheading brought about through employees obtaining
leave of absence of their own volition should be paid for at one-half pay.
Case dismissed by Board, requirements of Transportation Act not having
been complied with. N&W-Condrs. Decision No. 82.
Question as to application of Dec. 2 to deadhead rule. Case withdrawn,
parties at interest agreeing on settlement. OWRR&N-EF. Decision No. 97.
Claim of certain B. & B. employees for compensation under Section (f),
Article V, of National Maintenance of Way Agreement for deadheading
from their home to point of employment after having spent Sunday at their
home point. Decision-Board does not understand that the spirit and intent
of the Transportation Act has been complied with in handling of this dispute,
and therefore remands the case and directs that the spirit and intent of the
labor provisions of the act be given proper consideration by the parties to
this dispute. Upon evidence that this has been done and no agreement reached
the Board will render its decision. C&NW-MofW. Decision No. 650.
DECISIONS. Violation of.
Where road, party to Dec. 2, served thirty days' advanced notice that
effective Feb. 1, 1921, pay of all employees would be reduced by one-half of
sum of all increases effective since December 31, 1917, due to financial inability
of road to pay present wages, question as to right of road to make such
45
reduction without authority of Labor Board. Decision-Board without
jurisdiction until Sec. 301 of Transportation Act has been complied with and
conference held between parties concerned as to whether present wages are
just and reasonable. AB&A-EFC&T-Clks-SC—Tel—MofW-Disprs.
Decision No. 89.
Where road, party to Dec. 2, served thirty days advanced notice that on
Feb. 1, 1921, pay of all employees would be reduced to basis in effect April
30, 1920, due to financial inability of road to pay present wages, and on Feb.
1st actually put such reduced rates into effect, question as to right of road
to make such reduction without authority of Labor Board. Decision-Board
without jurisdiction until Sec. 301 of Transportation Act has been complied
with and conference held between parties concerned as to whether present
wages are just and reasonable; or if conference is refused Board will proceed
under Sec. 313 of the Act. M&NA-EFC&T-Disprs-SC-Tels. Decision
No. 90.
Where road, party to Dec. 2, arbitrarily reduced wages, made deductions
in earnings, and altered working conditions of certain classes of employees,
without first seeking conference with representatives of employees interested,
or obtaining consent of said employees, question as to whether Decision 2
was violated by road concerned. Decision-Carrier violated Decision 2 of
Labor Board and acted in conflict with provisions of Transportation Act.
Erie-MofW-Disprs. Decision No. 91.
Where road, party to Decision 2, about Dec. 1, 1920, issued an order putting
into effect reduced rates of pay and changed working conditions, without first
seeking or holding conference with representatives of employees concerned,
question as to whether Decision 2 was violated by road concerned-road's con-
tention being that positions involved were abolished and men re-employed on
individual contracts. Decision-Road violated Decision 2 of Labor Board, and
should restore the said positions and the pay, duties and obligations of said
positions to what they were on July 20, 1920, as established by Decision 2; and
further decided that persons serving in said positions just prior to effective
date of the carrier's order be reinstated, if they so desire, and receive pay
equal to what they would have received if occupying such positions, at the
rate provided by Decision 2, from the date removed or reduced in pay to date
of reinstatement, less any amount that may have been earned by personal
service in the meantime. StLSW-MofW. Decision No. 120.
Petition of road for rehearing on Decision 120-Denied. Decision No. 149.
Where Receiver of road, party to Decision 2 of Labor Board, reduced
wages of employees by order of the Court, and where employees involved, upon
such reduction being put into effect, left the service of the carrier in concert,
question as to violation of Decision 2 and Transportation Act by Receiver
of road and by organizations of employees concerned. Decision-(1) Receiver
violated Decision 2 by failure to hold conference as directed by Board's De-
cision No. 89, and, in case of disagreement, referring dispute to Board for
decision; putting into effect instead the wage reduction ordered by the Court,
which latter action was contrary to the letter and spirit of the Transportation
Act. (2) Board cannot condone what in itself was wrongful act on part of em-
ployees, whose duty, on learning that Receiver would not join in referring dis-
pute to the Board, was to themselves refer it to the Board. (3) Due to
complication resulting from the strike, Labor Board believes there is nothing
to be gained at the moment by requesting Court to recall its order of Febru-
ary 28, and to direct reinstatement of former employees; it does, however,
request the Court to direct the Receiver to confer with the petitioners upon
question of what constitutes just and reasonable wages, etc., and in case of
disagreement to refer dispute to Board for decision. (4) Board also requests
petitioners to attempt again to confer with Receiver regarding justness and
reasonableness of wages, and in case of failure to agree to submit dispute to
Board for decision. (5) As the U. S. District Court of the Northern District
of Georgia is exercising jurisdiction in regard to matter of wages for the
employees, in order to prevent conflict of jurisdiction, Board will take no further
action in the matter until the Court shall approve or deny the Board's requests.
AB&A-Engrs. et al. Decision No. 121.
46
Inquiry and proceeding instituted and conducted by the Labor Board on
its own motion under the provisions of the statute in the matter of the
threatened general strike of train and engine service employees on account
of dissatisfaction with Decision No. 147 making a reduction in wages. The
Board states (1) when any change of wages, contracts or rules previously
in effect are contemplated or proposed by either party, conference must be
had as directed by Transportation Act, and by rules or decisions of procedure
promulgated by the Board, and where agreements are not reached the dispute
must be brought before the Board and no action taken or change made until
authorized by Board; (2) the ordering or authorizing of the strike by the
organizations of employees was a violation of Decision No. 147, but said
strike order having been withdrawn, it is not now necessary for Board to
take any further steps in matter; (3) such overt acts by either party tending
to and threatening an interruption of the transportation lines, the peaceful
and uninterrupted operation of which are so absolutely necessary to the peace,
prosperity and safety of the entire people, are in themselves, even when they
do not culminate in a stoppage of traffic, a cause and source of great injury
and damage; and further, for the consideration of employees interested, the
Board points out that when such action does result in strike, the organization
so acting has forfeited its rights and rights of its members in and to the
provisions and benefits of all contracts theretofore existing, and employees
so striking have voluntarily removed themselves from the classes entitled to
appeal to the Board for relief and protection. (See Decision No. 147 for
carriers involved.) EFCTS. Decision No. 299.
Proceeding under Section 313 of the Transportation Act, 1920, to ascer-
tain and determine whether or not the carrier in question has violated Deci-
sion No. 528 of the Labor Board. Decision No. 528 involved the dismissal
of a certain switchman and fireman, because of having responded to request
of chief executives of their organizations for certain information as to the
status of the wage question on their line, which information had been re-
quested of the executives by the Labor Board because of the receipt of advice
by said Board from the officers of the company which indicated that no dispute
existed between the management and employees, whereas the employees were,
at the time, contending for payment of time and one-half for overtime as in
effect on other railroads in the territory. Road declined to become a party
to the case. Decision No. 528 of the Board ordered the reinstatement of the
employees in question. Decision-"In this proceeding the carrier again re-
fused to appear before the Board and in letter from its attorney made the
statement: 'I beg to state that the Interstate Railroad Company is of opinion
that the Labor Board has only advisory powers in matters of this kind.'
The question thus presented, in this case, is a most important one.
Here is a
carrier which arbitrarily and unfairly denies to its employees the simple right
to perform their duties as members of their organizations, which is equivalent
to a denial of their right to become members of such organizations. This
action is taken in the teeth of the Transportation Act passed by the Congress
of the United States, which expressly recognizes the right of employees to
organize and to function as organizations. The fact that this carrier is a
small road down in the Virginia mountains makes its conduct none the less
reprehensible. It connects with other carriers and the irritating effect of
its disregard for the rights of its men and for the authority of the law
extends to employees on other roads, and the Board therefore decides that
this company and its responsible officials have violated Decision No. 528 of
the Board as herein indicated." IRR--T&F. Decision No. 886.
DECISION NO. 2-APPLICATION OF.
(For termination of provisions covering continuation of rules, orders, etc.,
of Railroad Administration-See "Decision No. 119.")
(For back pay under-See "Back Pay.")
1. Clerical and Station Forces
2. Maintenance of Way Forces
3. Shop Employees
4. Engineers and Firemen
47
5. Conductors, Trainmen and Yardmen
6. Hostlers and Helpers
7. Telegraph Forces
8. Stationary Engine & Boiler Room Employees
9. Train Dispatchers.
10. Signal Forces
1. Clerical and Station Forces.
Question as to whether the increases of 13c per hour granted to baggage and
parcel room employees under Sec. 4, Art. II, Dec. 2 shall be added to rates in
effect at 12:01 A. M., March 1, 1920, or to subsequent rates. Decision-Add to
rates in effect 12:01 A. M., March 1, 1920. T.RRAssociationof St.Louis-
Clerks. Int. 2 to Decision No. 2.
Question whether the 5c increase provided under Sec. 6, of Article 2, De-
cision 2, covering office boys, messengers, chore boys, and other similar positions,
applied only to employees of the classes named who are less than eighteen years
of age, or to all such employees regardless of age. Decision-Applies to all
employees mentioned therein regardless of age. StLSF-Clerks. Int. 15 to
Decision No. 2.
Question as to whether employees engaged in handling rail, lumber, scrap,
etc., under supervision of foremen around the storehouses classified as laborers
are entitled to increase of twelve cents per hour under Sec. 7, Art. II, or to
eight and one-half cents under Sec. 9, Art. II, of Dec. 2. Decision-entitled to
eight and one-half cents under Sec. 9, Art. II, employees in question are not
station, platform, storeroom, freight handlers or truckers, etc., within the in-
tent of Sec. 7 of Art. II. MP&SW-Clerks. Decision No. 125.
Question as to whether employees designated as baggage agent, assistant
baggage agent, and assistant ticket agent, are entitled to increase of 13c per hour
under Sections 2 and 4, Art. II of Decision 2, or to 10c per hour under Sec. 1,
Art. V. Decision—Employees in question shall be increased 13c per hour under
Sections 2 and 4, Art. II, Dec. 2. TM-Clks. Decision No. 135.
Claim that certain employees designated as janitors and janitresses should
be increased ten cents per hour under Sec. 5, Art. II, Dec. 2. Decision-Em-
ployees referred to are not Janitors and therefore not entitled to increase pro-
vided in Sec. 5, Art. II. DL&W-Clks. Decision No. 139.
Where employee filling position of cashier was given voluntary increase
in salary in June, 1920, and where, in applying Decision 2, this increase was ab-
sorbed, claim is made that the increase under Decision 2 should have been added
to the rate in effect in June, 1920, and not to rate in effect March 1, 1920. De-
cision—Int. 2 to Decision 2 clearly outlines intent of Decision 2 in applying in-
creases to rates established subsequent to March 1, 1920, and should govern in
this dispute. WM--Clks. Decision No. 142.
Question whether employees engaged in handling material under supervision
of foreman or sub-foreman, in yards adjacent to storehouses are entitled to in-
crease of 12c per hour under Sec. 7, Art. II, Dec. 2. Decision-Employees in
question are not store-room or stock-room freight handlers, or truckers, and
not entitled to increase of 12c per hour under Sec. 7, Art. II. DL&W-Clks.
Decision No. 136. MStP&SSM-Clks. Decision Nos. 185 and 186.
Question as to proper application of increases provided in Art. II of Deci-
sion 2 to employees who are assigned to work the calendar days of the month
and receive a monthly rate to cover all service performed. Decision-Interpre-
tation 1, to Decision 2 prescribes the manner in which the increases should be
applied to monthly rated employees and should govern in this dispute. MP-
Clerks. Decision No. 182.
Claim that positions of office boy in offices of Superintendent, and Treasurer,
should be increased ten cents per hour under Section 5, Art. II of Dec. 2 con-
tention being that majority of work performed by these employees is similar
to that of employees specified in Section 5. Decision-Claim denied. StLSF—
Clks. Decision Nos. 191 and 203.
Question as to application of Decision 2 to position of shop accountants;
employees contending that the occupant of this position should be classified
as a subordinate official and increased under Section 1, Article II, while
48
carrier holds that position in question is of a supervisory character. De-
cision-Position in question is not included in Decision 2. MK&T—Clks.
Decision No. 200.
Where salary of clerk was increased on March 1, 1920, question as to
rate to be used in applying increase under Decision 2. Decision-Int. 2 to
Dec. 2 clearly outlines intent of Dec. 2 in applying increases to rates estab-
lished subsequent to March 1, 1920, and should govern in this dispute. Sou-
Clks. Decision No. 277.
Question as to whether employees engaged in the operation of multigraph
machines in the commissary departments are entitled to an increase of 13c
per hour under Sec. 2, or increase of 10c per hour under Section 5, of
Article II, of Decision 2. Decision-Employees in question should be increased,
according to their experience, in the amounts specified in Sections 2 or 3,
of Article II, of Decision 2. SP-Clks. Decision No. 268.
Claim is made that clerk had approximately thirty months previous
experience in clerical service similar to that required in railroad service, and
should, therefore, receive an increase of 13c per hour under Section 2,
Article II, of Decision 2. Decision-Claim sustained. EP&SW_Clks. De-
cision No. 245.
Where employee left the service and carrier bulletined the vacancy at
a lower rate of pay than the former incumbent was receiving, claim is made
that such reduction in the rate of the position was in violation of Rule 71
of the clerks' national agreement, and that the former rate be reestablished
from date the reduction was made, and the increase authorized by Decision
2 added to said rate. Decision-Claim sustained, decision not to be con-
strued to prohibit the establishment of minimum rates for inexperienced
clerks as provided in Decision 147. EP&SW-Clks. Decision No. 238.
Question as to whether employees engaged in handling baggage, mail and
express, cleaning stations and grounds, attending fires and lights, and per-
forming other necessary duties in and around stations, are entitled to increase
of 12c per hour under Section 7, Article 2, Decision 2. Decision-Employees
in question are not station or platform freight handlers or truckers, or others
similarly engaged, and not, therefore, entitled to increase under Section 7,
Article 2 of Decision 2. RF&P-Clks. Decision No. 286.
Question as to how increases specified in Article 2 of Decision 2 shall be
applied to laborers, store helpers and stockmen employed in the store de-
partment at certain point. Employees contend that the laborers are engaged
in loading and unloading, trucking and handling material and supplies and
should have been increased 12c per hour under Section 7, Article II, that the
store helpers devote the majority of their time to clerical work and should
have been increased 13c per hour under Section 2, Article II; that the stock-
men keep records of stock, make reports of stock on hand, check materials,
supervise other employees in storehouse and are entitled to an increase of 13c
per hour under Section 1, Article II. Decision-Board decides on evidence
before it that these laborers are not station, platform, or store room freight
handlers, or truckers or others similarly engaged within the intent of Section
7 of Article II; that the store helpers and stockmen referred to do not de-
vote a majority of their time to work of a clerical nature as defined in Rule
4. Article II, of the clerks' national agreement; that the stockmen are not
clerical supervisory employees referred to in Section 1. Article II of Decision
2; and claim of employees is, therefore, denied. M&O-Clks. Decision No.
384.
Question as to whether employees engaged in loading and unloading of cars,
filling oil tanks, sweeping and cleaning, and loading and unloading material
on and off tanks of engines in the stores department of the enginehouse are
entitled to an increase of 12c per hour under Section 7, Article II, or to
8½c per hour under Section 9, Article II of Decision 2; employees contending
that some of their work is of a nature which cannot be performed by un-
skilled laborers and that the employees in question are entitled to an in-
crease of 12c per hour. Decision-Board decides that employees involved are
not store room freight handlers, or truckers, or others similarly engaged
within the intent of Section 7, Article II of Decision 2, and claim of em-
ployees is, therefore, denied. NYC-Clks. Decision No. 391.
49
Question as to whether rate established by Railroad Administration for
employees classified as check clerks in freight office at certain point shall
continue in effect after expiration of Federal control. During period of Fed-
eral control the positions involved in this dispute were changed from classi-
fication of stevedores paid on hourly basis, to check clerks paid on monthly
basis. A dispute arose as to the proper rate of pay for these employees and
decision was issued by the Director General of Railroads increasing the
monthly rate, which rate the carrier applied and continued to pay until
the expiration of Federal control, when it decreased the monthly rate to the
former basis. The employees contend that the higher rate having been author-
ized by the Director General of Railroads, became a part of the national
agreement and should remain in effect as provided in Rule 86 of said agree-
ment. Decision-The Board decides that the rate of the positions involved
in this dispute was the rate established by and under the authority of the
U. S. Railroad Administration, and in accordance with the provisions of Rule
86 of the national agreement, Decision 2 of the Labor Board, and the Trans-
portation Act, this rate shall remain in effect until changed by mutual agree-
ment or by decision of the Board. StL-SF-Clks. Decision No. 465.
Question as to whether the positions of apron tenders at the Ferry passenger
station at certain point shall be increased 13c an hour under Section 4, Article
II of Decision 2, or 8½c an hour under Section 9, Article II of said decision.
Decision-Board decides that employees in question are not "train announcers,"
"gatemen" or "assistant station masters" or others similarly employed, and are
not, therefore, entitled to the increase of 13c per hour specified in Section 4,
Article II. SP-Clks. Decision No. 513.
Question as to whether yard checker at certain point is entitled to an in-
crease of 6½c an hour under Section 3, Article II of Decision 2, or an increase
of 13c an hour under Section 2 of Article II. Employees contend that this
employee had been previously employed in clerical work of a similar nature to
that required on the position he held in railroad service for more than one
year, and he is, therefore, entitled to the rate of pay of clerks of more
than one year's experience. Decision-Evidence before the Board shows that
this employee did have more than one year's experience in clerical work
of a similar nature in outside industry and position of employees is, there-
fore, sustained. SP-Clks. Decision No. 535.
Question as to whether experience of certain employee prior to enter-
ing the service of the carrier, coupled with her experience in the service of
the carrier entitled her to an increase of 6½c per hour under Sections
2 and 3 of Decision 2. Decision-Board decides that work performed by
this employee prior to entering the service of the railroad was of a nature
similar to railroad clerical work, and, therefore, she was entitled to an addi-
tional increase of 62c under Sections 2 and 3, when her accumulated ex-
perience amounted to not less than one year. PM-Clks. Decision No. 567.
Dispute with reference to preservation of rates for certain clerical em-
ployees. Supplement No. 7 to G. O. 27 established for certain clerical em-
ployees rates of pay which were less than those established by G. O. 27, but
in conference with representatives of the employees the carrier agreed to pre-
serve the higher rates established by G. O. 27, which agreement was approved
by the Regional Director. Subsequently the Federal manager issued in-
structions that all rates established by G. O. 27 which were higher than
those authorized by Supplement 7 thereto should be reduced when the posi-
tions to which they applied became vacant. Employees contend that action
of the carrier in reducing the rates of the position involved is violation
of Rule 86 of the clerks' national agreement, Decision 2 of the Labor Board,
and the Transportation Act, and request that the rates of pay established
by G. O. 27 be restored and that the employees who suffered reduction in
wages be reimbursed for monetary loss sustained. Decision-Board decides
that rates established by G. O. 27 and preserved by agreement between rep-
resentatives of the employees and the carrier were the rates established
by or under the authority of the U. S. Railroad Administration in effect
12:01 a. m., March 1, 1920, and should have remained in effect until changed
by mutual agreement or decision of the Board. The subsequent action author-
ized by the Federal manager, but without conference or agreement, seems to
50
have been an afterthought and while in equity may have had some justification,
it was not so properly handled as to give it full force and effect. The employees
involved shall, therefore, be reimbursed for the difference between the rates
of pay they received while holding the positions affected and the rates which
should have been established for such positions by applying the decisions
of the Labor Board to the rates in effect 12:01 a. m., March 1, 1920. SP—
Clks. Decision No. 622.
Dispute with reference to proper application of increase granted by De-
cision 2 to certain clerical position. Case withdrawn by employees and file
closed. SP-Clks. Decision No. 693.
Question as to proper increase under Decision 2 for employees classified
as elevator men in freight house at certain point. These men were increased
10c per hour under Section 5, Article II of Decision 2, but employees are
contending that while these employees are classified as elevator men they
perform other duties incident to the handling of freight which justifies a
differential over truckers and they should receive the increase provided in
paragraph (b), Section 8, Article II of said decision. Decision-Evidence
before the Board shows that the provisions of Decision 2 have been properly
applied to the employees in question and claim is, therefore, denied. MC-
Clks. Decision No. 788.
Question as to whether certain clerk is entitled to an increase of 62c
an hour under Section 3, Article II of Decision 2, or an increase of 13c
under Section 2, Article II of said decision. Decision-Evidence indicates that
this employee did have more than one year's experience in clerical work of
a similar nature in an outside industry, and was, therefore, entitled to the
rate of a clerk with more than one year's experience when she entered the
service of the carrier. StLSF--Clks. Decision No. 783.
Dispute with reference to proper application of Section 2, Article 2 of De-
cision 2, to certain clerical position. Case withdrawn by interested parties
and file closed. MP-Clks. Decision No. 841.
Dispute with reference to proper application of Decisions 2 and 147 to
multigraph operators. No facts given. Case withdrawn and file closed.
MK&T-Clks. Decision No. 847.
Claim for back pay under Decision No. 2 for certain employee in the
freight station at certain point who was increased in accordance with Sec-
tion 6 of Article II of Decision No. 2. Employees contend that this employee
was not an office boy or messenger as specified in Section 6 of Article II,
but was an employee engaged in assorting waybills and tickets and performing
other similar work as described in Section 5 of Article II, and is, therefore,
entitled to an increase of 10c an hour under said section. The carrier states
that this employee was first carried on the payrolls as press boy, and later
changed to messenger; that his work is so varied that he does not devote the
majority of his time to any particular duty; that an investigation developed
that he averages 25 round trips between the loading platform and the billing de-
partment, makes several trips carrying waybills to and from the yardmaster's
office, and is required to put together the shipping order tickets of the previous
day from the billing office and assort and bind them for permanent record;
that he takes up, perforates and arranges in numerical order and binds for per-
manent record the carbon copies of the previous day's waybills, and that he is
also required to put in order stationery for billing clerks and to take shipping
tickets from loading platform to billing office and when billing is completed,
to return them to the loading platform. Decision-Claim of employees denied.
ACL-Clks. Decision No. 863.
Dispute regarding proper application of Decision 2 to certain clerical em-
ployees and the joint employees of the carrier and the Western Union Tele-
graph Company, the total compensation being carried on the payrolls of the
carrier, and one-half of same billed against the Western Union Telegraph
Company. On January 1, 1920, the Western Union Telegraph Company in-
creased the wages of its employees 15 per cent, and requested that this increase
be added to their portion of the monthly compensation of these joint em-
ployees, which was equivalent to a 7½ per cent increase in the monthly rates
in effect on December 31, 1919. In the application of Decision 2, the carrier
applied the full increase to rates in effect January 1, 1920, prior to the applica-
51
tion of the increase granted to the Telegraph Company. Employees are con-
tending that the increase under Decision 2 should be added to the rates
in effect 12:01 a. m., March 1, 1920. Decision-Claim of employees sustained.
D&RG-Clks. Decision No. 882.
Dispute regarding proper application of Decision No. 2 to position of
watchman at certain point. No facts given. Decision-Dispute remanded
to employees and carrier for joint check in accordance with understanding
reached at hearing conducted by the Board. AT&S-Clks. Decision No. 913.
Question as to whether certain ticket clerk is entitled to an increase of
62c an hour under Section 3, Article II of Decision No. 2, or an increase
of 13c under Section 2, Article II of said decision. Decision-Evidence
before the Board indicates that the employee in question had more than one
year's experience in clerical work of a similar nature in an outside industry
and he is, therefore, entitled to the increase for clerks with experience of
one or more years in accordance with Section 2, Article II of Decision No.
2. SP-Clks. Decision No. 935.
2. Maintenance of Way Forces.
Question as to how the increases provided in Sec. 7, Art. III of Dec. 2 shall
be applied to employees who are assigned to work the calendar days of the month,
are paid a monthly rate and receive no additional compensation for service per-
formed on Sundays and holidays. Decision-Increase monthly salary by $17.34
(204x8½). N&W-MofW. Int. 1 to Decision No. 2.
Claim that "coal bunk laborers" who in the application of Dec. 2 were in-
creased 8½c per hour under Sec. 6, Art. III, should have been increased under
Sec. 8, Art. III-10c per hour. Denied. HV-MofW. Decision No. 41.
Where B&B foremen are paid a fixed monthly salary covering all service
rendered without additional compensation for overtime, Sunday or Holiday
work, nor deduction from pay in case of short absence from work, claim is made
that increases under decision 2 should be computed on basis of 240 times 15c per
hour, instead of 204 times the 15c rate. Denied-disposed of by Int. 1 to Dec.
2. Rutland RR--MofW. Decision No. 47.
Where rates for common laborers were voluntarily increased subsequent to
March 1, 1920, claim is made that increases under Dec. 2 should be added to such
increased rates, instead of rates in effect as of Feb. 29, 1920. Claim denied-
disposed of by Int. 2 to Dec. 2. RutlandRR-MofW. Decision No. 48.
Where certain differentials in rates of section foremen, which had been
eliminated by Sup. 8, were voluntarily restored by company as of April 1, 1920,
question as to right to maintain said differentials under Dec. 2. Eliminated by
Dec. 2 and Board can take no action. Rutland RR-MofW. Decision No. 49.
Where painters in maintenance of way department were classified and paid
under Sup. 4 and addendum 2 thereto, which rates continued to be applied up to
effective date of Decision 2 of Labor Board when management considered it had
erred in applying Sup. 4 to these employees and endeavored to correct the error
by applying the increase provided by Decision 2 to rates that would have been
in effect had Sup. 8 been applied, claim is made that the work performed by these
MofW painters should be classified and paid under the Shop Craft Agreement.
Decision (a) Employees in question do not come under National Shop Agree-
ment and not proper to classify and pay them under said agreement-(b) In-
crease of 15c specified in Decision 2 for MofW mechanics to be added to rates
in effect 12:01 a. m., March 1, 1920. DL&W-MofW. Decision No. 92.
Question as to proper application of Sec. 3, Art. XIII, Dec. 2 to monthly
rated employees; employees contending that the monthly rate should be deter-
mined on basis of number of eight-hour days required to work per calendar
year. Decision-Int. 1 to Dec. 2 clearly outlines intent of that decision in ap-
plying increases to monthly rated employees in MofW Department, and should,
therefore, govern in this dispute. C&NW-MofW. Decision No. 115.
Question as to proper application of Sec. 3, Art. XIII, Dec. 2 to monthly
rated employees-employees contending that 204 hours when worked out es-
tablishes a 306-day year for monthly rated employees, and, therefore, such em-
ployees, when required to work on Sundays or the seven specified holidays,
should be paid therefor at the overtime rates in addition to their monthly rate,
52
or be paid as many hours per month as their assignment requires in each case,
times the hourly increase. Decision--Int. 1 to Dec. 2 clearly outlines the intent
of that decision in applying increases to monthly rated employees in MofW De-
partment, and should, therefore, govern in this dispute. MP--MofW. Deci-
sion No. 114.
Where certain employees were given a slight increase in wages subsequent
to March 1, 1920, and prior to July 20, 1920, claim is made that Dec. 2 should
be applied to rates in effect as of July 20th, since such rates did not exceed
maximum rates as established by or under authority of Railroad Administra-
tion. Decision-Int. 2 to Dec. 2 clearly outlines the intent of Dec. 2 in applying
increases to rates established subsequent to March 1, 1920, and should govern
in this dispute. C&NW--MofW. Decision No. 116.
Claim that increases provided in Sec. 7, Art. III, Dec. 2, should be added to
rates established by Railroad Administration for the men specified on the eight-
hour day basis; and for employees required to work over eight hours per day,
an amount should be added per month equivalent to what should be figured
on basis of pro rata for ninth and tenth hours and thereafter at rate of time and
one-half. Decision--Int. 1 to Dec. 2 clearly outlines the intent of Sec. 7, Art.
III, of Dec. 2 with reference to application of increases to monthly rated em-
ployees, and should govern in this dispute. DL&W-Mof W. Decision No.
117. CI&L-MofW. Decision No. 118.
Question as to increase under Decision 2 to be applied to labor foremen, in
shops and enginehouses, whose duties consist of supervising engine wipers,
laborers, tool checkers, fire tenders, and like positions. Decision-Analogous
service (referred to in Article XII, Decision 2) as applied to supervisory
forces, entitled the supervisors in question to a monthly increase of not less than
204 hours times 13c, or $26.52 per month which amount represents the minimum.
monthly increase accruing to any class of supervisory forces specifically referred
to and coming under Decision 2. Int. 21 to Decision No. 2.
Claim is made that provisions of Section 8, Article III, Dec. 2, should apply
to all laborers who work under supervision of Master Mechanic and Round-
house Foremen, and not only to laborers such as engine watchmen and wipers,
fire builders, ash pit men, etc., as applied by company. Decision-(a) Sec. 8,
Art. III, Dec. 2 shall be applied to laborers employed in and around shops and
roundhouses who were classified and paid under Paragraph (a) Art. V, Sup.
7-(b) Sec. 6, Art. III, Dec. 2 shall be applied to laborers employed in and
around shops and roundhouses who were classified and paid under Paragraph
(b), Art. V, Sup. 7. C&NW--MofW. Decision No. 128.
Claim that increases provided in Section 3, Article VII, Dec. 2 covering train
service employees should be applied to certain employees of the MofW Depart-
ment assigned to self-propelled pile driver outfit, instead of the increases pro-
vided in Art. III of Dec. 2. Claim denied. Sou Pac--MofW. Decision No. 188.
Question as to application of Decision 2 to employees at coal wharves,
on line of road and at terminals. Carrier applied increase 10c per hour
under Section 8, Article III, to coal chute men within limits of terminal
yards, and 8½c specified in Section 6, Article III, to employees at coal
wharves on line of road, but employees contend that under Section 8, Article
III, coal chute men are entitled to 10c per hour increase, which should cover
all men doing that particular class of work, whether inside terminal yards
or outside of yards along the lines. Decision-Increases specified in Decision
2 were predicated upon rates established by or under authority of R.R. Ad-
ministration. If employees in question were classified and rated in accordance
with Sec. (g), Art. I, Sup. 8, or Sec. (b), Art. V, Sup. 7 to G. O. 27, in-
crease provided in Sec. 6, Art. III of Decision 2, is applicable; if classified
and paid under Sec. (a), Art. V, Sup. 7, the increase specified in Sec. 8, Art.
III, Decision 2, should be applied. N&W-MofW. Decision No. 301.
Question as to whether certain employees assigned as engine supply men
should come under Section 8, Article III, of Decision 2. Carrier classified
these men as laborers and applied increases under Section 6, Article III.
Decision-Employees in question come under Section 8, Article III, of Decision
2, and shall be paid accordingly. C&EI-MofW. Decision No. 331.
Dispute in regard to proper classification and rating of hoisting engineers
who are engaged in transferring cars over an inclined plane and performing
53
other services in connection therewith, employees contending that these hoist-
ing engineers perform mechanical work and should be paid the mechanic's rate
in accordance with Supplement 4 to G. O. 27, and the national shop agree-
ment, and under Decision 2 should have been increased 15c per hour. Carrier
states that the question now in dispute was submitted to Railway Board of
Adjustment No. 2, which Board in its decision No. 1056 sustained the decision.
of the carrier in its method of classifying and rating these employees as
stationary engineers and that in view of this fact it is not a proper sub-
mission to the U. S. Railroad Labor Board for decision. Decision-Decision
2 provides that increases specified therein shall be added to the rate of pay
established by or under the authority of the U. S. Railroad Administration.
Therefore, in view of the fact that decision rendered by Board of Adjust-
ment No. 2, an authorized representative of the U. S. Railroad Administra-
tion, sustained the carrier in its classification and rating of these positions
the Board decides that decision 2 has been properly applied and denies claim
of the employees for reclassification and rating. CenRRof NJ-MofW. De-
cision No. 397.
Question as to what increase under Decision 2 shall be applied to gang
leaders of laborers at certain wood preserving plant. Decision-Employees
in question are entitled to an increase of not less than 13c per hour,
which amount represents the minimum hourly increase accruing to any class.
of supervisory forces specifically referred to and coming under Decision 2.
Pa-MofW. Decision No. 515.
Question as to whether the increase of 15c per hour specified in Decision
2 for painters, covered by paragraph (b) of Decision 92 of the Labor Board,
shall be added to the rates in effect 12:01 a. m., March 1, 1920. Decision-
Yes. DL&W-MofW. Decision No. 518.
Question as to application of Decision 2 to laborers working around store
rooms, scrap docks and material yards, employees contending that increase of
12c per hour under Section 7, Article II of Decision 2, should apply instead
of 8½c under Section 9, Article II of Decision 2, as applied by carrier.
Decision-Position of carrier is sustained. CI&L-MofW. Decision No. 649.
Claim that employee who is engaged in the operation of a truck used for
purpose of transporting maintenance of way material from one location to
another and is classified as a chauffeur, should be classified as a mechanic
and increased under Section 4, Article III of Decision 2, and decreased in
accordance with Section 9 (d), Article XII of Decision 147. This employee
makes minor adjustments and repairs when away from the garage, but all
heavy repairs and overhauling is done by a mechanic employed in the garage.
Decision-Claim of employees denied. Ter RRAof St.L-MofW. Decision No.
711.
Dispute in regard to proper rate of pay of certain engine watchman. Em-
ployees claim that this engine watchman worked 12 hours each night, 365
nights per year, also that he worked 12 hours each Sunday, 52 Sundays per
year, equaling a total of 5,004 hours; further that Supplement 7 to G. O. 27
provided that this class of employees be paid time and one-half after 10 hours
each day. On the basis of straight time payment for 10 hours, 365 days per
year, 2 hours overtime for 365 days, plus 12 hours overtime for 52 Sundays.
a total of 5,681 hours is produced, which is the number of hours that should
be used in determining the monthly rate under the provisions of Section (a-12),
Article V of the national maintenance of way agreement, which method
produces a higher monthly rate under the provisions of Decision 2 than that
allowed by carrier. Decision-Board decides that it was the intent of section
(a-12), Article V of the national maintenance of way agreement that the
monthly rate provided therein for hourly rated employees should be predi-
cated upon the hours constituting the employees' assignment for which pay-
ment was allowed when rated on the hourly basis. C&A.-MofW. De-
cision 714.
Claim that B. & B. foremen, water service foremen, and assistant B. & B.
foremen, on a certain division, should receive the same monthly rate of pay
as foremen and assistant foremen in the B. & B. and water service depart-
ments of all other divisions of the carrier's system. During Federal control
division in question was under a different Regional Director from the balance
54
of the system and these men were paid a lower rate of pay. On March 18,
1920, after the termination of Federal control, certain increases were author-
ized for these foremen, but when Labor Board's Decision No. 2 was rendered,
in accordance therewith the increases were added to the rates which were in
effect 12:01 a. m., March 1, 1920, and the carrier takes position that the rates
now paid are correct under the orders of the Railroad Administration and
subsequent rulings of the Labor Board. Decision-Board decides that pro-
visions of Decision 2 have been complied with in applying increases in the
manner outlined. However, principle 7, paragraph (d), Section 307 of Title
3 of the Transportation Act, states that "inequalities of increases in wages or
of treatment, the result of previous wage orders or adjustments," shall be
taken into consideration and this decision is not to be construed to mean other-
wise, or that the duly authorized representatives of the carrier and employees
may not negotiate to a conclusion rates of pay for the positions in question.
SP-MofW. Decision No. 798.
Claim of engine watchman for adjustment in rate of pay in accordance
with Section 8, Article III of Decision No. 2. Employees claim that the point
in question is not an isolated point as referred to in Section (a-12), Article V,
of the National Maintenance of Way Agreement, and further that if such point
is an isolated point, then the monthly rate should have been determined by
applying the provisions of Section (a-12) to the hourly rate established in
accordance with Section 8, Article III of Decision No. 2. Decision-It is
decided that Decision No. 524 of the Labor Board shall be followed in de-
termining whether or not the point in question shall be considered an "isolated
point." If it is proper to consider such point an isolated point, the Board
decides that the carrier was justified in establishing a monthly rate for the
position in question. The monthly rate, however, should have been predicated
upon the rate of pay and assignment in effect at the time such change was
made. If Section (a-12), Article V, of the agreement does not apply, the
hourly rate shall be reestablished on the basis of what the hourly rate should
have been had the monthly rate not been established, making necessary al-
lowance for all subsequent adjustments that have been made by decision of the
Board. Adjustment in compensation not to be made retroactive beyond July
1, 1921. C&NW-MofW. Decision No. 806.
Claim of pumper for adjustment in rate of pay based on provisions of Sec-
tion 7, Article III, of Decision 2. On March 1, 1920, this employee was re-
ceiving an hourly rate of pay, which rate was increased under Section 7, Ar-
ticle III, of Decision No. 2. On November 1, 1920, under Section (a-12),
Article V, of the Maintenance of Way Agreement, a monthly rate was
established on the basis of the hourly rate in effect prior to May 1, 1920
(the effective date of Decision No. 2) plus $20.40, as provided in Decision
No. 2, for monthly rated employees. Employees claim that the monthly rate
should have been determined by applying the provisions of Section (a-12),
Article V, of the agreement to the hourly rate established in accordance with
Section 7, Article III, of Decision No. 2. Decision-Board decides that the
carrier was justified in establishing a monthly rate for the employee in ques-
tion in accordance with Section (a-12) of Article V, but that such monthly rate
should have been predicated upon the hourly rate and assignment in effect at the
time such change was made, and the employee in question shall be reimbursed to
the extent he has suffered a wage loss account the improper application for the
period from July 1, 1921, until the proper adjustment is made. C&NW-Mof
W. Decision No. 898.
Dispute concerning establishment of monthly rate of pay for certain engine
watchman. On March 1, 1920, this employee was receiving an hourly rate
of pay, which rate was increased in accordance with Section 8, Article III,
of Decision 2. On March 15, 1920, under Section (a-12), Article V, of the
Maintenance of Way Agreement, a monthly rate was established on the
basis of the hourly rate in effect prior to May 1, 1920 (the effective date of
Decision 2) plus $20.40, as provided in Decision 2, for monthly rated employees.
Employees claim that the monthly rate should have been determined by apply-
ing the provisions of Section (a-12) of Article V of the agreement to the
hourly rate established in accordance with Section 8, Article III, of Decision
No. 2. Decision-Board decides that the carrier was justified in establishing
55
a monthly rate for the employee in question in accordance with Section
(a-12) of Article V, but that such monthly rate should have been predicated
upon the hourly rate and assignment in effect at the time such change was
made, and the employee in question shall be reinbursed to the extent he has
suffered a wage loss account the improper application for the period from
July 1, 1921, until the proper adjustment is made. C&NW-MofW. De-
cision No. 899.
3. Shop Employees.
Question whether increases under Dec. 2 to employees coming under Rule
15, of National Shop Agreement should be based on 3,156 hours per year, or
204 hours per month. Decision-Apply increase on basis of 3,156 hours per
calendar year. AT&SF-SC. Int. 3 to Decision No. 2.
Question whether increases specified in Art. IV of Dec. 2 covering shop
employees are applicable to such employees of the Nevada Northern Railway
Company, and, if so, to what rates shall such increases be added. Decision-
Increases specified in Art. IV of Dec. 2 are applicable to employees of the
Nevada Northern; and should be added to rates in effect on that road at 12:01
a. m., March 1, 1920, and applied to all employees specified in that article. Int.
20 to Decision No. 2.
Question as to whether helpers who are regularly assigned to assist employees
who are performing work in the maintenance of signals as provided for in
Rules 140 and 141 of Federated Shop Crafts' Agreement shall be increased under
Sec. 3, Art. IV, or under Art. IX of Decision 2, it being agreed by both parties
to the dispute that the mechanics are electrical workers within the meaning of
Rules 140 and 141 of the National Shop Agreement. Decision-Helpers in
question are included in the classes of helpers specified in Section 3, Art. IV,
and shall receive the increase of 13c per hour provided therein. C&EI-RE
Dept A FofL. Decision No. 129.
Question as to proper application of Decision 2 to telegraph and tele-
phone linemen coming within the scope of Rule 15 of the National Shop
Agreement. In applying Decision 2 carrier followed method prescribed in Sec-
tion 3 of Article XIII thereof. Employees claim that this is improper appli-
cation and call attention to Interpretation 3 to Decision 2, which specified
the method of applying increases to regularly assigned road service employees
covered by Rule 15. Decision-Interpretation 3 to Decision 2 shall be followed
in applying increases to the telegraph and telephone linemen in question.
SP-ShCrafts. Decision No. 400.
Question as to application of Decision 2 to seamstresses in upholstery
department-no facts given. Decision-Board understands that subsequent
to filing this dispute an agreement has been negotiated and consummated and
that further negotiations will be conducted with a view to disposing of this
dispute. In view of this fact the case is considered closed without prejudice
to the right of either party in making further submission in connection there-
with if it so desires. PullmanCo-ShCrafts. Decision 428.
4. Engineers and Firemen.
Shall the overtime rate for engineers in passenger service which in some in-
stances was greater than one-eighth of the daily rate be increased in the same
proportion as the daily rate under Decision 2? Decision-No. Rate shall not
be less than one-eighth of increased daily rate, preserving former higher flat
overtime rates. L&N-EF. Int. 4. IC-E. Int. 14 to Decision No. 2.
Shall the passenger minimum under existing agreement, which is five cents
in excess of minimum rate established by Sup. 15 be increased by Dec. 2? Yes.
L&N-EF. Int. 5 to Decision No. 2.
Shall the minimum for mine run service under existing agreement for en-
gineers, which is higher than mileage rate authorized under Sup. 15, be increased
by Dec. 2? Yes. L&N-EF. Int. 6 to Decision No. 2.
Shall the minimum daily and monthly rates on branch lines, which are higher
than the revised main line rates provided for in Supps. 15 and 24, be increased
by Dec. 2? Yes. L&N-EF. Int. 7 to Decision No. 2.
Question as to how Dec. 2 shall be applied to existing rule covering minimum
56
allowance for engineers and firemen when not used in other service during cal-
endar day on which deadhead trips are made. Decision-Question relates to in-
creasing arbitrary rates and special allowances which are closely interwoven
with certain rules and which rules will be given consideration by Board when
question of rules is taken up for decision. L&N-EF. Int. 9 to Decision No. 2.
Question as to how Dec. 2 shall be applied to existing rule providing arbitrary
allowance to engineers and firemen for handling engines with or without trains,
between shops and passenger stations at certain points. Decision—Question re-
lates to increasing arbitrary rates and special allowances which are closely inter-
woven with certain rules, and which rules will be given consideration by Board
when question of rules is taken up for decision. L&N-EF. Int. 9 to De-
cision No. 2.
Question as to how Dec. 2 shall be applied to existing rate allowed engineers
on certain branch lines for their services as conductors plus amounts earned
as engineers. Decision-Question relates to increasing arbitrary rates and spe-
cial allowances which are closely interwoven with certain rules and which rulęs
will be given consideration by Board when question of rules is taken up for de-
cision. L&N-EF. Int. 9 to Decision No. 2.
Question as to how Dec. 2 shall be applied to rates for engineers and firemen
in yard and road service, also hostlers and hostler helpers, when attending court,
Decision Question relates to increasing arbitrary rates and special allowances
which are closely interwoven with certain rules and which rules will be given
consideration by Board when question is taken up for decision. L&N-EF.
Int. 9. SAL-EF. Int. 12 to Decision No. 2.
Where rates for Santa Fe type engines being higher than rates established
by Supplements for similar weight-on drivers engines was retained, question
as to whether increases specified in Decision 2 should be applied to this retained
higher rate, or to rate of supplement for similar weight engines. Decision-In-
crease to be added to retained rate. Southern-EF. Int. 18 to Decision No. 2.
Question as to whether increases granted in Article VI of Dec. 2 should be
applied to rates in effect covering deadhead service which rates were established
under authority of U. S. Railroad Administration as being the same as the mini-
mum freight and passenger rates. Decision-Yes. AT&SF-EF. Int. 16
to Decision No. 2.
Shall the fifty-two cents per 100 miles for engineers and forty cents per 100
miles for firemen in local freight service as specified in Sec. (b) of Art. IV,
Sup. 15, be proportionately increased under Dec. 2 of Labor Board? De-
cision-No. LA&SL-EF. Int. 17 to Decision No. 2.
Shall the minimum rates for engineers in passenger service in effect prior
to Sup. 24 and preserved account being higher than minimum established therein
be increased by Dec. 2? Decision-Yes. SAL-EF. Int. 11 to Decision No. 2.
How shall Dec. 2 be applied to guarantee minimum daily rate for engineers
and firemen in short turn-a-round passenger service? Add 80c to rate specified.
NP-EF. Int. 13 to Decision No. 2.
Shall the daily guarantee in passenger service established by Sup. 15 for en-
gineers and firemen be increased 80c by Art. VI of Dec. 2? Yes. SAL-EF.
Int. 10. IC-E. Int. 14. Int. 22 to Decision 2.
5. Conductors, Trainmen and Yardmen.
Question as to increase to be applied to shifter brakemen under Dec. 2. De-
cision-Apply increase of $1.04 per day-service being analogous to mine run
service. C&O-Trainmen. Int. 8 to Decision No. 2.
Question as to proper rate of pay for footboard yardmasters under De-
cision 2. Carrier states that prior to Federal control it made no distinction
in its foremen, and never recognized any footboard yardmasters. When
Supplement 22 to G. O. 27 was issued by the U. S. Railroad Administration, it
put into effect the differential of 40c to one of its yard foreman's rates. When
Decision 2 came out under Section 4, Article VII thereof, reading "superseding
rates established by or under the authority of the U. S. Railroad Administra-
tion, and in lieu thereof, etc.," it interpreted the words "superseded" and "in
lieu thereof" to mean the elimination of the differential rate which was estab-
lished by the Railroad Administration. Decision-If the engine foreman
in question is required to perform duties of yardmaster in addition to perform-
57
ing duties as engine foreman, 40c per day in excess of foreman's rate is
just and reasonable and should be applied. C&S-Trainmen. Decision
No. 484.
Where in the application of Supplement 16 to G. O. 27, certain brakemen
in local passenger service were receiving a higher monthly rate than provided
in the Supplements, and which higher rate was retained in accordance with
question and decision thereon in Interpretation 1 to Supplement 16, question
now arises as to whether increase of $30.00 per month as provided in Section
1, Article VII of Decision 2, should be added to the old guaranteed monthly
rate—and if so how the daily rate should be obtained-or should the $30.00
be added to the daily and monthly rate provided in Article I of Supplement
16 to G. O. 27. Decision-The $30.00 per month specified in Section 1,
Article VII of Decision 2, should be added to the old guaranteed monthly
rate which was retained under Interpretation 1 to Supplement 16, and the same
existing method of procuring the daily and hourly method of pay shall be
maintained. LA&SL-C&T. Decision No. 487.
6. Hostlers and Helpers.
Question whether rate specified in Dec. 2 for hostler helpers applies to cer-
tain roundhouse employees. Decision-No; such employees not "hostler
helpers" within intent of Dec. 2. TRRAssociationof StLouis-MofW. Deci-
sion No. 40.
Question as to proper rate of pay under Decision 2 for employees designated
as "inside hostler helpers." Employees contend these employees are doing
the same class of work as the outside hostler helpers and should be paid the same
as the main line helpers under Sec. 4, Art. VI, of Dec. 2; road claims employees
referred to do not come within the term "helper" as defined in Sup. 15 and Int.
1 thereto, and that such employees should be increased under Sec. 8, Art. III,
Dec. 2. Decision-Employees referred to not "hostler helpers" within intent.
of Decision 2. CCC&StL-MofW. Decision No. 143.
7. Telegraph Forces.
Question as to whether positions of non-telegraph agents at certain points
should be increased under Section 1 or Section 2 of Art. V of Decision 2. De-
cision-Positions in question are small non-telegraph stations as defined in Ad-
dendum 2 to Sup. 13 to G. O. 27 and shall be increased five cents per hour under
Sec. 2 of Art. V of Dec. 2. StL-SF-Telgrs. Decision No. 131.
Where in April, 1919, due to reorganization of force a readjustment of rates
was made causing a reduction of rates for dispatchers, question as to proper
basic rate to be used in applying Decision 2. Decision-Int. 2 to Dec. 2 clearly
outlines the intent of Decision 2 in applying increases and should govern in this
dispute. CB&Q-ATDA. Decision No. 152.
Question as to whether position of non-telegraph agent at certain point
should be increased ten cents per hour under Sec. 1, Art. V, Dec. 2, or five cents
per hour under Sec. 2 of Art. V thereof. Decision-Rate to be increased five
cents per hour under Sec. 2, Art. V. I&GN-ORT. Decision No. 179.
8. Stationary Engine and Boiler Room Employees.
Question as to whether certain stationary engineers, who are monthly rated
employees and received an increase under Dec. 2 based on 204 hours per month,
should be allowed overtime for service performed on Sundays and holidays. De-
cision—Int. 1 to Dec. 2 covers similar question as to extra payment for service
in excess of 204 hours per month, and should govern in this dispute. TRRof
St.L-IUofS&OE. Decision No. 202. MP-IUofS&OE. Decision 256.
Claim that certain stationary firemen paid on a monthly basis and who
were allowed an increase of 13c per hour based on 204 hours in accordance
with Section 2, Article 8 of Decision 2, should be paid on the hourly basis
and receive 13c increase for every hour worked as per Rule 7 of the Firemen's
and Oilers' National Agreement. Decision—Interpretation 1 to Decision 2
clearly outlines the Board's position in connection with application of increases
to monthly rated employees and shall govern in this dispute. T&OC—
AFofRRW. Decision No. 349.
58
Question as to proper classification and rating of certain pump house
employees. During Federal control upon submission of dispute to Director
General, Decision No. 15 was rendered classifying said employees as station-
ary engineers under Section 2, Article II of Supplement 7 to General Order
27, but said decision was never applied by carrier. Employees now contend
that this decision of the Director General established the classification of
stationary engineers for those employees and that the rate applicable to that
class under Supplement 7 plus the increase specified in Section 1, Article 8
of Decision 2, should apply to the employees in question. Decision-In-
creases specified in Decision 2 were to be added to the rates established by
or under the authority of the U. S. Railroad Administration. Therefore,
in view of the fact that Director General decided the employees in question
were stationary engineers within the meaning and intent of Supplement 7,
the Board decided that increases specified in Decision 2 should be added to
rate of pay established by the U. S. Railroad Administration for stationary
engineers. DL&W-Mof W. Decision No. 352.
Question as to whether stationary engineers classified under section (a),
Article II of Supplement 7 to G. O. 27, should receive increase on basis of 365
S-hour days per year under Decision 2. Decision-Interpretation No. 1 to
Decision 2 covers the question in dispute. C&NW-IntUofS&OE. Decision
No. 716.
9. Train Dispatchers.
Question as to how increase provided in Section 1, Article XI, of Decision 2,
shall be applied to train dispatchers now being paid a monthly rate, employees
contending that as train dispatchers are required to work on legal
holidays, or an average of 208 2/3 hours per month, the increase should be
applied to the total hours constituting their regular monthly assignment. De-
cision-Int. 1 to Decision 2 prescribes manner in which increases under Deci-
sion 2 should be applied to monthly rated employees and should govern in this
dispute. NYC—ATDA. Decision No. 247.
10. Signal Forces.
Where certain signal maintainers, classified and paid by carrier under
Supplement 4 as electrical workers, second class, were, upon claim being
made by employees that such men were performing work of a composite
mechanic and matter submitted to Railroad Administration, by decision of the
Administration rerated and paid as electrical workers first class up to the date
of termination of Federal control, after which time these employees were again
classified as second class electrical workers, question now arises as to rate to
be used in applying increase under Decision 2 to said employees. Decision-
Increase provided in Decision 2 shall be applied to the rates established
by decision of Railroad Administration referred to and back pay allowed ac-
cordingly. MP-Signalmen. Decision No. 252.
Question as to proper rate of pay under Decision No. 2 for certain low-
voltage signalmen and signal maintainers. These ernployees were rated in ac-
cordance with Section (1-a), Article II, of Supplement 4 to G. O. 27 (58c).
When Interpretation 2 to Supplement 4 was issued, employees contended that
the men referred to were composite mechanics, and should have been paid
as provided in Section 1, Article II, of Supplement 4, namely 68c per hour.
The carrier disagreed with this contention, and joint submission was filed with
the Railroad Administration. On December 20, 1919, the Railroad Administra-
tion authorized the application of the 4c per hour specified in the National
Shopcrafts' Agreement to the rates of signal department employees, covered
by Supplement 4 to G. O. 27, establishing the rates of 62c and 72c per hour,
respectively. On February 25, 1920, Supplement 28 to G. O. 27 was issued,
which provided that signalmen and signal maintainers covered by Signalmen's
Agreement, who were classified and paid in accordance with Section (5-a),
Article I, of Supplement 4, should be paid 68c per hour. This latter rate was
the rate these employees were receiving at the termination of Federal control,
and to which the increase specified in Decision No. 2 was added, establishing a
rate of 81c per hour. On November 2, 1920, the decision of the Director
59
General of Railroads was received in connection with the submission made,
which decision provided that "the employees in question are properly classified
as signal maintainers. They perform the duties of composite mechanics and
shall be rated and paid in accordance with Interpretation 2 of Supplement 4
to G. O. 27 from the effective date of said supplement." Employees contended
that this decision provided for the employees in question the rate of 85c per
hour. The carrier did not concur in the views of the employees, taking the
position that these employees were a composite of low-voltage linemen and
signal maintainers, and that under their interpretation of the Director Gen-
eral's decision, the employees were being properly compensated. The employees
objected to the carrier's interpretation of the Director General's decision, and
the matter was again handled with the United States Railroad Administration,
and is still pending before the Administration. Decision-(a) Based upon
evidence in this case, the Board decides that if any difference of opinion exists
as to actual work being performed by these employees, a proper joint inves-
tigation should be made by the duly authorized representatives of the carrier
and the employees, and rate of pay established accordingly; (b) in regard to
application of Decision 2, the Board does not feel that the question is properly
before it, in that the matter is still one of dispute between the employees and
the United States Railroad Administration. If, after definite understanding
or ruling from the Administration, it is the desire of employees to again bring
the matter to the attention of the Board, such procedure may be followed after
proper compliance with the provisions of the Transportation Act. SP-Sig.
Decision No. 903.
DECISION NO. 3——APPLICATION OF.
Where during the month of March, 1920, certain express employees re-
ceived increases of from $5 to $10 per month, question is raised as to whether
the increases granted under Article II of Decision No. 3 should be added to
rates in effect 12:01 a. m., March 1, 1920, or to the rates which include the
increases granted after March 1. Decision-Labor Board does not consider
the increases granted the express employees referred to as increases made for
purpose of adjusting inequalities within the meaning and intent of Article II
of Decision No. 3 and decides that increases granted under Decision No. 3
should be added to rates of pay in effect at 12:01 a. m., March 1, 1920.
ARECO-Clerks. Decisions Nos. 361 and 363.
Question as to whether the increases granted employees in express service
under Article II should be added to rates in effect 12:01 a. m., March 1, 1920,
or to rates which include increases granted by carrier since that date. Em-
ployees contend that the increases granted after March 1, 1920, were for the
purpose of adjusting inequalities within the meaning, intent, and language
of Decision No. 3 and that the increases should therefore be added to the
rates established after March 1, 1920. Decision-Board decides that increases
granted under Article II of Decision No. 3 shall be added to rates of pay
in effect 12:01 a. m., March 1, 1920, and claim of employees is therefore
denied. Amer RyExp-Cierks. Decision No. 670. ARE-Oof RyE. Deci-
sions Nos. 673 and 681.
Where at certain point the express agent is allowed a flat sum per month
in addition to his commission, in consideration of which he furnishes suitable
help to handle the express business on shuttle trains between certain points,
employees contend that payment of a flat sum to this agent for the purpose
of maintaining shuttle service is not in accordance with the spirit and intent
of the agreement. Carrier takes position that they were unable to secure
any applicants when vacancies on this one run were bulletined and that it was
deemed expedient and conducive to the best interests of the service to have
the contract agent perform the service and employ any additional help neces-
sary in connection therewith, and claim therefore that the employee on this
shuttle train is not a bona fide employee of the express company and is not
subject to the provisions of Decision No. 3 or any other decision or order
affecting working conditions of employees in express service. Decision-
Position of carrier is sustained. ARE-Clerks. Decision No. 701.
Question as to whether the increase granted under Article II of Decision
60
No. 3 to certain express employees should be added to the rates in effect
12:01 a. m., March 1, 1920, or to rates which include certain increases granted
by the carrier since that date. Decision-Board decides that the increase
granted the employees in question was not made for the purpose of adjusting
inequalities within the meaning and intent of Article II of Decision No. 3.
Therefore the increase as granted under Article II of Decision No. 3 shall
be added to the rates of pay in effect 12:01 a. m., March 1, 1920. ARE—
Clks. Decision No. 857.
Question as to application of Decision No. 3 to certain clerical positions.
Employees state that there was not enough difference between the rates of
pay of the position in question and other positions in the department, which
constituted an unjust inequality, making it necessary for the carrier to increase
such position in order to secure and retain the services of a competent em-
ployee, which increase they state "was granted February 25, 1920," effective
March 1, 1920, and they are contending, therefore, that the increase under De-
cision 3 should have been added to the increased rate referred to. Carrier con-
tends that the increase was not made for the purpose of adjusting an inequality
but for the purpose of securing and retaining the service of a competent em-
ployee and that such increase, therefore, should be absorbed in the application
of Decision 3. Decision-It appears that the increased rate referred to was
not granted for the purpose of adjusting an inequality within the meaning and
intent of section 3, but the evidence is not clear as to whether or not the in-
crease was granted prior to 12:01 a. m., March 1, 1920; therefore the Board
remands this dispute to the employees and the carrier to determine whether
or not the increase was granted prior to March 1, 1920. If it was granted
prior to 12:01 a. m. March 1, 1920, the increase under Decision No. 3 shall
be added to the rate which includes the voluntary increase of the carrier;
but if the increase was not granted before 12:01 a. m. March 1, 1920, the in-
crease under Decision No. 3 shall be added to the rate previously in effect.
ARE-Clks. Decision No. 904.
When Decision No. 3 was issued on August 16, 1920 (which decision was
made effective May 1, 1920,) carrier applied increase prescribed therein to rate
of position held by part time employee as of August 16, 1920. This employee
is now claiming back pay to the effective date of said decision for the days
which he worked between said period, namely May 1 to August 16, 1920. De-
cision-Claim of employees sustained. ARE-Clks. Decision No. 905.
Question as to application of Decision 3 to certain employees classified as
guards and custodians, employees contending that these men are bona fide
employees of the carrier and are entitled to the increase specified for employees
in their class of service in section 4, Article II of Decision No. 3. Carrier
states that it has been a practice of long standing to hire individuals to per-
form guard service and pay them a flat rate to cover such service; that the
individuals referred to are engaged in other employment and come within the
category of casually employed laborers who devote only a part of their time
from outside business; that their employment is incidental and intermittent
and, therefore, they are properly excluded from Supplement 19 to G. O. 27,
from the Transportation Act, from the Decisions of the Labor Board and
from the National Agreement covering express employees. Decision-It ap-
pears that these so-called guards or custodians have been engaged in this same
work for a period of from four to eight years, that statement filed with Board
showing number of days worked indicates they customarily perform from 15
to 20 days service per month and the Board decides, therefore, that Decision 3
shall apply to the employees referred to from the effective date thereof. ARE-
Clks. Decision No. 932.
DECISION NO. 119-APPLICATION OF.
•
(For Right of Representation under-See "Representation Rights.")
1. Train and Engine Service Employees
2. Telegraph Employees
3. M. of W. Employees
4. Clerical Employees
61
5. Shop Crafts
6. Signalmen
7. Stationary Firemen and Oilers
8. Miscellaneous
1. Train and Engine Service Employees.
Question whether Decision No. 119 affects the agreements, supplements,
orders, etc., executed with or issued by Railroad Administration covering
engineers, firemen, conductors, trainmen and yardmen; employees contending
that no dispute regarding these matters was before the Board at time Decision
No. 119 was rendered. Decision-Decision No. 119 does not terminate exist-
ing agreements of train, engine and yard employees, as the Labor Board did
not, nor could it under provision of Transportation Act, include in its Deci-
sion No. 119 any matter which was not before it as a dispute. Changes,
however, may be made after required notice either by agreement of the parties.
or by decision of Board after conference and proper reference in accord with
Transportation Act. CI&L-FEC-AA-CGW-TC. Int. 2 to Decision
No. 119.
2. Telegraph Forces.
Question whether Decision No. 119 terminates, July 1, 1921, the agreement
of the Order of Railroad Telegraphers with the carriers included in that
decision, employees contending that said decision in no wise affects the agree-
ments, supplements, orders, etc., of Railroad Administration, for reason that
no dispute regarding these matters, involving said organization, was before
the Board at time Decision No. 119 was rendered. Decision-Employees
sustained; changes, however, in such agreements may be made after required
notice, either by agreement of the parties or by decision of Board after
conference and proper reference in accord with Transportation Act; this
decision not to interfere with agreements reached nor with negotiations pro-
ceeding after proper notice. Int. 4 to Decision No. 119.
Question as to right of carrier to change the payment for overtime from
a punitive to a pro rata basis effective as of July 1, 1921, covering employees
in the station, tower, and telegraph service. Decision-In view of Interpre-
tation No. 4 to Decision No. 119 the Board decides that the carrier shall not
be permitted to make the change referred to. Erie-Tel. Decision No. 553.
3. M. of Way Employees.
Under provisions of Addendum 2 to Decision No. 119, how should over-
time apply to employees of the M. of W. Department from July 1 to De-
cember 16, 1921? Decision-The pro rata overtime rate specified in para-
graph (1) of Addendum 2 to Decision No. 119 shall apply for period July 1
to December 16, 1921 (on which date Decision No. 501 became effective),
except on carriers and for classes of employees that have a more favorable
method of payment prior to effective date of any supplement to G. O. 27, or
that have reached an agreement providing a more favorable method of pay-
ment; in either event the more favorable method of payment shall apply.
Int. 2 to Add. 2 to Decision No. 119.
Request for reinstatement with pay for time lost of certain laborers in
extra work-train gang dismissed from service. These men were engaged in
shoveling ballast out of track and on the date in question the work train on
which the men were to return to home point was delayed and had not arrived
at the usual quitting time. The assistant foreman therefore requested the
men to continue at work until work train arrived, for which they were told
they would be paid the pro rata rate. The employees refused to work for
pro rata rate, claiming that they had previously been paid at time and one-
half for such service and were not aware of Addendum 2 to Decision No. 119,
which reestablished the pro rata rate. The employees further claim that the
day was extremely hot (the thermometer registering 104 degrees F. in the
shade), and as the service was not of an emergency nature, they were justified
in refusing to work overtime. Decision-Action of carrier is sustained.
However, Board decides further that if the employees in question request re-
62
employment they shall not be discriminated against account this occurrence,
and if accepted shall enter service as new employees. DL&W-MofW. Deci-
sion No. 588.
Question as to whether certain supervisory foremen in the maintenance of
way service should receive extra compensation when required to supervise
their gangs on Sundays and holidays. Decision-Board sustains position of
carrier in the manner in which Section (h) of Article V of the National
Maintenance of Way Agreement has been applied up to the effective date of
Addendum 2 to Decision No. 119 (July 1, 1921), from which date Addendum
2 or any agreement that may have been subsequently entered into shall be
made applicable. In event that no agreement has been reached, Section (h),
Article V, of Decision No. 501, effective December 16, 1921, shall apply in
the manner provided therein. For all service considered as overtime for which
extra compensation is provided the hourly rate of pay for such service shall
be predicated upon 204 hours per month in accordance with Section (e),
Article V, of Decision No. 501, regardless of the hours or days that may be
considered as the regular assignment of monthly rated supervisory forces.
T&P-MofW. Decision No. 593.
Does Addendum 2 to Decision No. 119 cancel overtime of employees in
the maintenance of way department authorized by the U. S. Railroad Ad-
ministration where no agreement was reached in conference on rules estab-
lishing an assignment of hours that constitute a day's work? Decision-
Addendum 2 to Decision No. 119 was intended to supersede overtime condi-
tions established by or under the authority of the U. S. Railroad Administra-
tion and the provisions thereof shall be applied in the manner prescribed
therein. KCM&O-MofW. Decision No. 602.
Question as to application of overtime under Addendum 2 to Decision No.
119 to maintenance of way employees. Decision-Interpretation 2 to Adden-
dum 2 to Decision No. 119 covers the question in dispute. C&S-MofW.
Decision No. 644. N&W-MofW. Decision No. 645.
Question as to whether employees who were paid time and one-half after
10 hours prior to government control, which then constituted a day's work,
should be paid time and one-half after 8 hours under Addendum No. 2 to
Decision No. 119. Decision-Interpretation No. 2 to Addendum No. 2 to
Decision No. 119 clearly covers question in dispute and shall apply to this
case. CenRRofNJ-MofW. Decision No. 805.
4. Clerical Employees.
Dispute regarding payment for certain clerical employees on a monthly
basis instead of a daily basis. Decision-It appears this dispute covers differ-
ence of opinion between employees and carrier as to application of Rule 66
of the national agreement, but that no claims for payment in accordance with
employees' understanding of the rule are pending for adjustment. As this
rule has been given consideration in conferences conducted between represen-
tatives of the employees and the carrier in accordance with Decision No. 119,
the Board does not consider it desirable to pass upon the dispute at this time.
Case is therefore removed from the docket and file closed. SP-Clerks. De-
cision No. 459.
Request for reinstatement of two clerks dismissed from service for alleged
violation of carrier's operating Rules 400 and 405 and disregard of Principles
2 and 6 of Decision No. 119 of the Labor Board, these employees having been
instrumental in the publication of a monthly paper for the interest of the
employees, but which paper had been ordered discontinued by the carrier.
Carrier contends that Rule 400 was violated in that some of the work per-
formed in connection with the publication of this paper was performed during
the time employees were on duty; that Rule 405 was violated in that the
employees engaged in the publication of a paper without first having secured
permission; and that principles 2 and 6 of Decision No. 119 were violated in
that the paper which was published contained matter destructive of morale
and good feeling which should exist between employees and the carrier.
Employees take the position that the paper in question was published in the
interest of the organization; that the employees in question were authorized
at a regular lodge meeting to publish a paper for such purpose; and that the
63
organization—not the employees-should be held accountable for their action.
Decision-In the opinion of the Board, Rule 400 was not violated, as there
was no evidence submitted showing that any work in connection with the paper
was performed during the working hours of the employees; neither was there
any direct violation of Rule 405, as the employees in question sought and
obtained permission to publish a paper, although they did deviate entirely from
the permission given. However, the contents of the paper were entirely at
variance with Principles 2 and 6 of Decision No. 119, and particularly Prin-
ciple 2, and certainly were conducive of destroying any spirit of cooperation
which may have existed between the employees and the carrier. Request for
reinstatement is therefore denied. MK&T-Clerks. Decision No. 467.
5. Shop Crafts.
Under Addendum No. 2 to Decision No. 119, question as to (a) proper
compensation for time worked outside of established day of eight hours,
July 1 to August 15, 1921, inclusive; (b) proper compensation for time
worked by hourly-paid employees for service rendered on Sundays and desig-
nated holidays, July 1 to 15, 1921; (c) proper compensation for monthly-
paid employees for service rendered on Sundays and designated holidays,
July 1 to 15, 1921. Decision-(a) Overtime rate specified in first paragraph
Rule 6, Decision No. 222, shall apply for time worked outside established day
of eight hours, July 1 to August 15, 1921; (b) second paragraph Rule 6,
Decision No. 222, shall apply for service rendered by hourly-rated employees
on Sundays and designated holidays, July 1 to August 15, 1921; (c) pro-
visions of Rule 15 of Decision No. 222 shall apply for period July 1 to August
15, 1921, except that in each of these instances on roads and for classes of
employees having a more favorable method of payment prior to effective
date of any supplement to G. O. 27 promulgated by Railroad Administration,
or who had reached agreement pursuant to Decision No. 119 providing a
more favorable method of payment, the more favorable method of payment
shall apply. Employees who were compensated on a less favorable basis than
outlined shall be reimbursed to extent of any wage loss suffered for period
above mentioned. Int. 1 to Add. 2 to Decision No. 119.
Question as to proper application of Addendum 2 to Decision No. 119 to
pump repairers compensated on a monthly basis. Evidence indicates that
prior to Federal control these pump repairers were paid monthly rates cover-
ing all service rendered, and received no payment for overtime. In accord-
ance with rulings of the Railroad Administration these employees were in-
cluded in the national agreement covering shop crafts and under Rule 15
thereof their monthly rate was predicated upon 3,156 hours per year. After
the issuance of Addendum 2 to Decision No. 119 the employees were notified
that their pay would be reduced, the new rate being predicated upon 2,920
hours per year (8 hours multiplied by 365 days). The management contends
that these men were paid no overtime prior to Federal control and Addendum
2 to Decision No. 119 has therefore been properly applied. Decision-Board
decides that Interpretation No. 1 to Addendum 2 to Decision No. 119 covers
the question in dispute. N&W-ShopCrafts. Decision No. 541.
Question as to proper application of Addendum 2 to Decision No. 119 to
conveyor-car operators, elevator operators, car-dumper operators, steam
power-house operators, performing work in connection with the operation of
coal pier. Prior to Federal control these employees were compensated on a
monthly basis and received no additional payment for overtime on Sunday
and holiday service. In accordance with rulings of Railroad Administration
and the National Shop Agreement these employees were given the same over-
time conditions as shop employees, which method of payment continued in
effect until the issuance of Addendum 2 to Decision No. 119, when the rail-
road management started the practice of paying these employees pro rata
rate for all overtime in excess of the established hours of service, including
work performed on Sundays and holidays. Decision-Board decides that
Interpretation 1 to Addendum 2 to Decision No. 119 covers the question in
dispute. N&W-ShopCrafts. Decision No. 542.
Question as to application of item No. 1 of Addendum 2 to Decision No.
119 to certain car inspectors. Prior to Federal control time and one-half was
64
paid after 9 hours to employees in certain classes of work in several crafts,
while employees in other classes of work in the same crafts received no over-
time. For example, carmen in shops on repairs and construction received time
and one-half after 9 hours while carmen working as inspectors in train yards
on interchange tracks and outlying points received no overtime. Carrier con-
tends that it is privileged under Addendum 2 to pay car inspectors pro rata
rate for overtime. Decision-Board decides that Interpretation 1 to Ad-
dendum 2 to Decision No. 119 covers the question in dispute. HV-Shop
Crafts. Decision No. 543.
Question as to whether under Addendum 2 to Decision No. 119 (1) rate
of time and one-half should be paid after bulletined hours-now 8-or after
same number of hours, after which time and one-half was paid prior to issuance
of G. O. 27 and (2) overtime, Sunday and holiday conditions should be the
same for all employees covered by the present Federated Crafts Agreement,
regardless of the difference existing in such conditions prior to G. O. 27.
Decision-Board decides that Interpretation No. 1 to Addendum 2 to Deci-
sion No. 119 covers the question in dispute. B&M-ShopCrafts. Decision
No. 544.
Question as to (1) whether the overtime provisions contained in agree-
ment prior to general orders of the U. S. Railroad Administration go into
effect July 1, 1921, and remain in effect until final action and decision of the
Board as to overtime rates and provisions, or overtime provisions of the
national agreement remain in effect on July 1, 1921; and (2) what constitutes
classes of employees as referred to in Section 1, Addendum 2, with respect
to overtime provisions. Decision-Board decides that Interpretation 1 to
Addendum 2 to Decision No. 119 covers questions in dispute. CRI&P-- Shop
Crafts. Decision No. 545.
Question as to whether, under Addendum 2 to Decision No. 119, Rule 7 of
the National Shop Agreement providing for payment of minimum of 5 hours
for any overtime after ninth hour of continuous service should continue in
effect, or whether the rule in effect prior to Federal control, which provided
for payment of any overtime after the basic day at rate of time and one-half
except for first 40 minutes or less, for which one hour was allowed, should
apply. Decision-Addendum No. 2 to Decision No. 119 was not intended to
cover Rule 7 of the national agreement and provisions of this rule should
therefore have remained in force and effect until August 16, 1921, the effective
date of Decision No. 222. N&W-ShopCrafts. Decision No. 585.
Question as to whether the American Federation of Railroad Workers
has the right to negotiate an agreement covering car-department employees
on a certain division of the carrier involved. Decision-Principle 15 of Deci-
sion No. 119 provides "the majority of any craft or class of employees ***"
and in view of the fact that this organization does not represent a majority
of the carmen on an entire system, the Board sustains the position of the
carrier in refusing to enter into negotiations regarding rules and working
conditions to cover the carmen on the one division in question. M&StL-Amer
Fedof RRWorkers. Decision No. 618.
Question as to whether punitive rates should be paid after 8 hours' service
or the same number of hours after which it was paid prior to Federal control
pending further decisions of the Labor Board. Decision-Interpretation 2 to
Addendum 2 to Decision 119 covers the question in dispute. B&M-KofL.
Decision No. 651.
6. Signalmen.
Question as to proper application of Addendum 2 to Decision No. 119 to
signal department maintenance employees who are regularly assigned to
work seven days per week. While the carrier involved was not listed in
Decision No. 119 it was mutually agreed that the provisions thereof would be made
applicable and in accordance therewith negotiations regarding revision of rules
and working conditions were entered into. Prior to Federal control the agree-
ment in effect provided that no extra compensation would be allowed main-
tenance men who worked on a monthly basis for Sundays and holidays, unless
called for extra duty. In accordance with provisions of Supplement 4 to G. O.
65
27 employees in question were allowed payment at rate of time and one half
for Sunday and holiday work up to July 1, 1921, the effective date of Adden-
dum 2 to Decision 119 on which date overtime conditions prevailing prior to
government control for regular seven day workers were reestablished. Em-
ployees take position that Decision 119 and Addendum thereto did not abrogate
the provisions of agreement entered into between carrier and its employees
dated May 1, 1919. but that Decision No. 119 and Addendum 2 thereto had refer-
ence to the so-called national agreements promulgated by the U. S. Railroad
Administration. Decision-In view of the acceptance of the provisions of
Decision No. 119 as being applicable to the carrier and the employees in question,
Board decides that Addendum No. 2 thereto shall likewise be considered ap-
plicable and further decides that the carrier has complied with the meaning
and intent of said Addendum No. 2 in reestablishing overtime conditions in
effect prior to the issuance by the U. S. Railroad Administration of any sup-
plement to G. O. 27. KCTer.-Sig. Decision No. 648.
7. Stationary Firemen and Oilers.
Dispute in regard to payment of Sunday and holiday service in the steam
power plant at certain point, employees claiming that the carrier was not
complying with the national agreement covering firemen and oilers nor with
Addendum 2 to Decision No. 119. At the oral hearing conducted by the Board
certain matters not specifically mentioned in the employees' submission were
injected, and it also developed that the supporting evidence appended to em-
ployees' submission referred to several questions and did not cover any specific
complaint or dispute. It was therefore, suggested, by the examiner that the
submission be redrawn in order that it might clearly set forth the employees'
contention and that such redraft be handled as a new submission. Decision-
Case is, therefore, considered closed and if further submission is made in
connection therewith evidence already submitted will be considered in con-
junction with the resubmission if the parties to the dispute so desire. SP-
Firemen and Oilers. Decision No. 520.
Dispute in regard to interpretation of Rules 5 and 7 of the Firemen's and
Oilers' Agreement. Carrier construes these rules and the interpretation placed
thereon by the Director General to mean that the employees carried on a
monthly salary should be placed on a 26-working-day basis and allowed pro
rata time as overtime for Sundays and holidays. Decision-Board does not
concur with construction placed by carrier upon interpretation used by the
Director General regarding application of Rule 5 and decides that up to
the effective date of Addendum 2 to Decision No. 119 the monthly rate shall
be predicated upon 306 days per year and additional pay allowed for time
required to work on Sundays and holidays. Subsequent to July 1, 1921, the
provisions of Addendum 2 shall apply unless an agreement on this question
has been reached, in which event the rules so agreed upon shall apply. D&RG
-MofW. Decision No. 595.
8. Miscellaneous.
Question as to application of Addendum No. 2 to Decision No. 119 to
employees engaged in the loading and unloading of coal and ore. Decision-
Organization named was not a party to Decision No. 119; therefore Ad-
dendum No. 2 to said decision has no application in this dispute, and case is
removed from docket and the file closed.
shoremen's Asso. Decision No. 816.
B&O-HV-T&OCen-IntLong-
DECISION NO. 147-APPLICATION OF.
1. Clerical Employees
2. M. of W. Employees
3. Shop Crafts
4. Train Dispatchers.
1. Clerical Employees.
Under what section of Addendum 1 to Decision No. 147 shall the pay of fore-
men, assistant foremen, yard checkers, and counter clerks in the baggage de-
partment be reduced? On April 1, 1920, prior to issuance of Decision No. 2 these
66
employees were increased 17c per hour and when Decision No. 2 was issued the
carrier allowed this increase to stand in consideration of the agreement made
at the time the increase became effective. Employees contend in this case that
Addendum 1 to Decision No. 147 should be applied exactly as it reads and that
the carrier should segregate the employees in the various classes and apply the
decrease authorized for each class. Carrier contends that as the employees
were treated as one class in increasing their wages and that to segregate them
into different classes and apply the decreases authorized by Decision No. 147
would create differentials which have not heretofore existed, they should now
be considered as one class and the 10c per hour authorized for baggage and parcel
room employees be applied for all employees in the baggage department. De-
cision-Position of carrier is sustained. TerRRAssnof StL-Clerks. Decis-
ion No. 621.
Dispute with reference to proper application of Decisions 2 and 147 to
multigraph operators. No facts given. Case withdrawn and file closed.
MK&T-Clks. Decision No. 847.
2. M. of W. Employees.
Claim that employee who is engaged in the operation of a truck used for
purpose of transporting maintenance of way material from one location to
another and is classified as a chauffeur should be classified as a mechanic and
increased under Section 4, Article III of Decision No. 2 and decreased in accord-
ance with Section 9 (d), Article XII of Decision No. 147. This employee makes
minor adjustments and repairs when away from the garage but all heavy re-
pairs and overhauling is done by a mechanic employed in the garage. Decis-
ion-Claim of employees denied. TerRRAof StL-MofW. Decision No. 711.
3. Shop Crafts.
Question as to proper application of Decision No. 147 in reducing the rates of
water service foremen. Decision-Case withdrawn by employees and file
closed. CRI&P-Shop Crafts. Decision No. 591.
4. Train Dispatchers.
Dispute with reference to application of the reduction in rates of pay of
train dispatchers. Prior to 1917 a differential existed between rates of pay
of train dispatchers on certain tricks in the dispatching office of the carrier
named. In that year a readjustment was made which resulted in the equaliza-
tion of the rates of train dispatchers on all but one division upon which the
differentials were continued. G. O. 27 being predicated on the rates in effect
in the year 1915 had the effect of restoring the pre-existing differentials, and
which were maintained in the application of Decision No. 2. In the application of
Decision No. 147 the employees sought to have the decreases applied in the man-
ner which would eliminate the differential between train dispatchers on the various
tricks, which the carrier declined to do. Decision-Board decides that imme-
diately upon receipt of this decision the employees and the carrier shall confer
and arrange for the distribution of the amount of decrease for the train dis-
patchers specified in Article XI of Decision No. 147 in the manner which will
comply with request of the employees for the elimination of the differentials
as between dispatchers operating the same divisions provided that nothing
herein shall be construed to result in increased cost to the operation of the
carrier. It is further ordered that the application of the decrease as herein
provided shall be made concurrently with the application of Addendum 4 to
Decision No. 147. HV-ATDA. Decision No. 720.
DECISION NO. 217–APPLICATION OF.
Dispute with reference to application of decreases in rates of pay authorized
in Decision No. 217 to employees of the Southeastern Express Company. On
July 11, 1921, the Labor Board rendered Decision No. 217 authorizing certain
decreases for employees of the American Railway Express Company. The
Southeastern Express Company was not a party to the dispute upon which
Decision No. 217 was rendered, but the decreases authorized therein were ap-
plied to certain employees in its service. Employees contend that this action
67
on part of the carrier should not have been taken without proper conference and
agreement with the employees. Decision-Board decides that the Southeastern
Express Company, in reducing wages without seeking conference with the rep-
resentatives of the employees interested, has acted in conflict with Section 301
of the Transportation Act, 1920, and with Order No. 1 of the Board, and
that it shall restore to all employees affected by the application of said decision
the difference between the rates of pay they have received since August 1, 1921,
and the rates of pay they would have received had the wages in force during
the period prior to that date remained in effect. SEE-Clks. Decision No.
822.
DECISION NO. 220-APPLICATION OF.
Question as to whether the positions enumerated shall be considered as
coming within the scope of group 1 of Decision No. 220, in connection with
the voting of clerical employees in the service of the carrier in accord-
ance with Decision No. 583. Decision No. 220 divides the employees in clerical
and station service into three groups for purpose of taking a ballot, and repre-
sentatives of the respective parties to this dispute are unable to agree as to the
allocation of certain classes of employees in the said groups. Decision—The
Board after due consideration of all evidence presented, decided to and did
classify, for the purpose of voting for clerical representation in accordance
with Decision 583, the positions in dispute in accordance with the grouping
of employees set up in Decision 220. MC-Clks. Decision No. 829.
DECISION NO. 222-APPLICATION OF.
Does rule 55 of Addendum 3 to Decision No. 222 permit others than mechanics,
who are members of the crew assigned to the scrapping of equipment referred
to in this rule, to use acetylene cutting torch in connection with the work.
Case_withdrawn by employees and file closed. B&O-Shop Crafts. Decision
No. 796.
Under provisions of Rule 6, Addendum 6, to Decision No. 222, shall time and
one-half be allowed an employee who is required to work on Saturday, when
the shops are bulletined to work Monday to Friday, inclusive? Decision-Yes,
this is time outside of bulletin hours, and should, therefore, be compensated on
the basis of time and one-half. HV-ShCrf. Decision No. 890.
Question as to whether the provisions of Decision No. 222 and Addenda
thereto shall be applied to car department employees in the manner provided there-
in, and from the effective date therein specified. (These car department em-
ployees represented by the American Federation of Railroad Workers were
made parties to Decision No. 119 by Addendum 1 thereto, but were not parties
to Decision No. 222). Upon the issuance of Decision No. 222, the manage-
ment applied the provisions specified therein to all classes of employees enum-
erated, regardless of organization affiliation, carrier taking the position that
it would have been inconsistent to have continued more favorable working
conditions to employees who were members of the American Federation of
Railroad Workers, and to have denied the more favorable conditions to em-
ployees who were members of the other organizations, who, in some instances,
worked in the same shop and in other instances worked in the same gang.
Employees contend that the working conditions in effect immediately prior
to the negotiations conducted with the carrier should remain in full force and
effect, until superseded or amended by specific decision of the Board upon the
disputed rules submitted to it by said American Federation of Railroad
Workers and the management, and that the car department employees be
reimbursed to the extent that they have suffered a wage loss account of
alleged improper application of Decision No. 222. Decision-Based upon
evidence submitted and circumstances cited in this case, the Board is of the
opinion that it would have been irregular and would undoubtedly cause con-
siderable dissatisfaction to have established different working conditions for
employees who had previously enjoyed the same working conditions and who
are at present and have been in the past considered in the same general class,
and the Board, therefore, decides that the provisions of Decision No. 222 and
68
Addenda thereto shall apply to the carworkers in the same manner and from
the same effective date as if they had been included in original Decision No.
222 and addenda thereto. W&LE-AFRW. Decision No. 893.
DECISION NO. 721-APPLICATION OF.
Question as to application of rules governing working conditions for train
dispatchers to chief train dispatchers. Decision-This dispute is returned to
the employees and carriers for conference and further consideration in accord-
ance with Section I of General Instructions of Decision No. 721. MStP&S
StM-AmTrDisprsAsso. Decision No. 810. WM-AmTrDisprsAsso. De-
cision No. 811. MC. Decision No. 812. LI. Decision No. 813. D&RG.
Decision No. 814. SP. Decision No. 815. D&RG. Decision No. 848.
I&GN. Decision No. 849. CM&StP. Decision No. 850. SP. Decision No. 866.
DECISION 332-RETROACTIVE EFFECT OF.
Shall decision No. 332, which provides for the restoration of a differential
of three cents per hour for certain carpenter foremen and carpenters when per-
forming certain classes of work, be made retroactive to August 2, 1920, the
date on which the payment of the differential was discontinued by the carrier.
Decision-Yes. C&O-MofW. Decision No. 902.
DECLINATION OF APPLICATIONS.
Application of Edw. A. McHugh and others (outlaw strikers) for hearing
and consideration of petition. Declined by Board. Decision No. 1.
DECREASES. (See also "Reduction in Rates of Pay.")
Request of carrier for reduction in rates of pay and changes in rules and
working conditions of train and engine employees. Decision-Apply decreases
authorized by Decision 147, effective July 1, 1921. Representatives of car-
rier and employees to confer and decide so much of dispute concerning rules
as may be possible, referring back to Board the unsettled rules, if any; and
as soon as possible after July 1, 1921, the Board will promulgate such rules
as it determines to be just and reasonable to cover any working conditions
regarding which parties may have failed of agreement, such rules to be effective
as of July 1, 1921. D&SL-EFC&T. Decision No. 148.
Request of certain carriers for reduction in rates or pay of certain classes
of employees. Decision-Granted, effective July 1, 1921. (See decisions for
scope of decreases and carriers and employees affected.) Decision No. 147,
Add. 1 and 2, to Decisions 147, 214 and 215.
Request of American Railway Express Co. for reduction in rates of pay
of its employees and subordinate officials. Decision-granted, effective August
1, 1921. (See decision for scope of decreases and employees affected.) De-
cision No. 217.
Dispute as to what shall constitute just and reasonable wages for certain
clerks, agents, telegraphers, foremen and laborers as enumerated in this de-
cision. Addendum 2 to Decision No. 147 authorizes the carrier to make deduc-
tions from the rates of specified classes of employees who had been increased
under Decision No. 2 and provided that employees who had been otherwise in-
creased should be covered by a separate agreement and this decision covers
the latter class. Decision-Effective October 16, 1921, rates of wages for
specified classes of employees listed shall be established by deducting from
the amount of increases granted subsequent to February 29, 1920, 60 per cent
of such increases. SD&A-(See Decision for Employees Affected). De-
cision No. 228.
Request of carrier for authority to reduce rates of pay of enginemen,
motormen and trainmen twenty five per cent. Decision-Effective Oct. 16.
69
1921, present rates of pay of engineers, motormen, firemen, conductors and
brakemen shall be reduced twenty (20) per cent, which, taking into consid-
eration all the conditions and circumstances as contemplated by Transportation
Act, 1920, including financial condition of carrier, i. e., its earnings, cost of
operation, etc., will establish just and reasonable wages. ElectricShortLine
Ry.—EFC&T. Decision No. 229.
Request of carrier for authority to revise rules and working conditions and
rates of pay for train and engine service employees, maintenance of equipment
employees, station agents, assistant station agents and telegraph operators.
Decision-Board is sympathetic with principle that "inability of the carrier to
pay" is not controlling factor in fixing wages, but recognizes that it is entitled
to secondary consideration with certain type of carrier dependent almost en-
tirely on local business or whose principal function in the final analysis is de-
velopment and upbuilding of a new or comparatively new country. It has
given careful consideration to the seven points laid down in the Transportation
Act, to other relevant circumstances as well as the peculiar conditions sur-
rounding the operation of this carrier; and decides that effective November 1,
1921, rates of pay specified in this decision are authorized. Rules and working
conditions will be reserved for later hearing as organizations of train and
engine service and station telegraph service announced they were not prepared
to proceed with this question. (Decision dissented from by A. O. Wharton,
of the Board, on the grounds of the unjust and unreasonable treatment ac-
corded shop employees under the decision and the indefensibly low rates es-
tablished for laborers, reciting the various reasons therefor. W. L. McMeni-
men, of the Board, also states he is not in accord with majority decision and
cannot concur in dissenting opinion). NOGN_EFCT—Tel-ShCfts. De-
cision No. 290.
DEDUCTIONS.
Claim of engineers and firemen for refund on moneys deducted from
their pay to cover alleged overpayments. Sustained. D&SL-EFCT. De-
cisions Nos. 21, 22 and 23.
Where road, party to Decision 2 of Labor Board, arbitrarily reduced
wages, made deductions in earnings and altered working conditions of certain
classes of employees, without first seeking conference with representatives
of employees interested, or obtaining consent of said employees, question as
to whether Decision 2 was violated by road concerned. Decision-Carrier
violated Decision 2 of Labor Board and acted in conflict with provisions of
Transportation Act. Erie-MofW-ATDA. Decision No. 91.
Where for some years past road had allowed certain section houses, built
and owned by company, to be occupied by section foremen in its employ free
of charge. Question as to right of road to make a monthly rental charge of
$5.00 for these section houses and make a deduction of said amount from
wages of section foremen for use and occupation of such quarters. Road sus-
tained. MK&T-MofW. Decision No. 94.
DEMOTION.
Demotion of clerk, account failure to qualify, and failing to report for
duty upon expiration of leave of absence. Board decides employee, by own
act, automatically separated himself from service of carrier. SP-Clks. De-
cision No. 16.
Question as to seniority and demotion of certain B. & B. foreman. Decis-
ion-Based upon facts as presented and applicable only to this case position of
carrier is sustained. FW&DC-MofW. Decision No. 592.
Dispute in regard to right of carrier to make certain changes in its signal
organization resulting in the demotion of certain assistant signalmen to help-
ers. Decision-Board is of the opinion that the carrier was acting within its
rights and that the classification and seniority provisions of the agreement not
only permit, but specifically provide for classifications and rates of pay based
upon the character of work performed and so long as the rate of pay is in con-
formity with the classification and the employees are not required to perform
70
work that comes under a classification carrying a higher rate, and the seniority
provisions of the agreement are observed, there is no just cause for complaint.
On the other hand, however, the Board is of the opinion that better results
would be obtained if the carrier conferred with the duly authorized representa-
tives of the employees prior to placing in effect a reorganization of forces such
as occurred in this case. The Board decides, therefore, that the carrier has
not violated the provisions of the agreement provided the employees in ques-
tion are not assigned to or required to perform the work of maintainers or as-
sistant maintainers; further that the demoted employees shall be credited with
the full time served as assistant signal maintainers and rated on that basis
when again assigned as assistant maintainers. B&O-Sig. Decision No. 709.
Question as to right of signal maintainer, promoted to position of signal
supervisor, upon position of signal supervisor being abolished to return to his
former position, displacing employee assigned thereto. Carrier contends that
when this employee was promoted to position of signal maintainer it was
understood that he would have the right to return to his former position in
event the position of signal supervisor was abolished. Decision-(a) Board
decides that appointment of this employee to position of signal supervisor did
not constitute a temporary appointment; (b) continuity of employees service
with the carrier was not disturbed by said employment; (c) that this employee
as a result of being demoted is entitled to a position of signal maintainer by
displacing the signal maintainer having the least seniority rights on the senior-
ity district as per Section 8, Article IV of the agreement; (d) employee filling
position formerly held by this signal supervisor is entitled to retain said posi-
tion provided he is not the junior signal maintainer on the seniority district.
CB&Q-Sig. Decision No. 801.
DEPOT FOREMEN. See "Foremen-Depot.”
DIFFERENTIALS.
1. Clerical Employees
2. M. of W. Employees
3. Shop Crafts
4. Train, Engine & Yard Employees
5. Telegraph Employees
6. Signal Employees
1. Clerical Employees.
Request of carriers for elimination of inequalities of rates of pay of certain
clerical and station employees paid on a daily basis. During Federal control
the carriers under a decision issued by the Railway Board of Adjustment No.
3, were required to apply rule 66 of the clerks' national agreement to employees
paid on a daily and hourly basis. This resulted in clerical and station em-
ployees working 7 days a week, who formerly received the same daily com-
pensation as employees working 6 days a week, receiving a higher daily rate
of pay. Carrier claims that rule 66 refers solely to the method of computing
the daily rate of employees paid on a monthly or weekly basis, and makes no
reference to employees paid on a daily or hourly basis, and further contends
that the application of this rule to employees paid on a daily or hourly basis
has resulted in unjustifiable inequalities in the daily rates of pay of positions
which had previously paid the same rate per day. Decision-It is the opinion
of the Board that rule 66 of the clerks' national agreement prescribes the man-
ner of determining the daily rate for employees paid on a monthly or weekly
basis. It makes no reference to employees paid on a daily basis and the ap-
plication of the formula prescribed therein for converting monthly and weekly
rates to a daily basis to employees who are already paid on a daily basis had
the effect of establishing inequalities in the rates of pay of employees perform-
ing the same work in the same office who had previously received the same rate
per day regardless of whether they worked 6 or 7 days a week. When the
Board extended the effective period of the clerks' national agreement it
71
adopted for a temporary purpose rule 66 and in a sense made it a rule of the
Board. Therefore, the Board has a right to consider this rule and interpret
its meaning and is not bound by the construction placed thereon by any other
authority existing prior to the passage of the Transportation Act. The Board,
therefore, decides that effective December 16, 1921, the differential now exist-
ing between the daily rate paid to employees working on a 6 and 7 day per
week basis shall be abolished by reducing the daily rate of the 7 day per week
employees to the daily rate paid 6-day-per-week employees. B&M-MC-
NYNH&H-CofNE-PTer-Clerks. Decision No. 426.
2. M. of W. Employees.
Where certain differentials in rates of section foremen, which had been
eliminated by Supplement 8, were voluntarily restored by Company as of April
1, 1920, question as to right to maintain said differentials under Decision 2.
Decision-Eliminated by Decision 2 and Board can take no action. RutlandRR
-MofW. Decision No. 49.
Question as to whether carrier was justified in discontinuing the three-cent
differential to carpenter foremen and carpenters, which differential was speci-
fied in agreement entered into prior to Government control, and payment of
which continued until August 2, 1920. Decision-No change should have been
made in the practice of allowing this differential until the matter was properly
handled in accordance with Sec. 301 of Transportation Act, and said differen-
tial should, therefore, be restored. C&O-MofW. Decision No. 332.
Shall fire-cleaners at certain point who are receiving 44c per hour less
than fire-cleaners at terminals, which differential was previously established,
be paid same rate as fire-cleaners at terminals. Decision-No. MPRR-M
of W. Decision No. 358.
Shall Decision No. 332, which provides for the restoration of a differential
of three cents per hour for certain carpenter foremen and carpenters when
performing certain classes of work, be made retroactive to August 2, 1920,
the date on which the payment of the differential was discontinued by the
carrier. Decision-Yes. C&O-MofW. Decision No. 902.
3. Shop Crafts.
Shall the employees who exercise direct supervision over, and are held re-
sponsible for the work of coach cleaners, who are paid hourly rates of pay,
receive 5c per hour above the maximum rate paid coach cleaners at points em-
ployed, in accordance with Section 4, Article III of Supplement 4 to General
Order 27. Decision-Yes. SP-Shop Crafts. Decision No. 350.
Question as to application of Rule 32 of the National Shop Agreement and
claim of employees for differential in rate of pay of certain mechanics. No
facts given. Decision-Board is in receipt of advice that this case has been
amicably settled, and that further action is not desired on the part of the
Board. The docket is, therefore, closed. L&N-ShCrfts. Decision No. 923.
4. Train, Engine and Yard Employees.
Request for rule providing for payment of differential of eighty cents per
one hundred miles above valley rates on certain districts. Parties at interest
agreed upon settlement and withdrew case from Board. OWRR&N—E&F.
Decision No. 312.
Question as to proper rate of pay for footboard yardmasters under Decision
No. 2. Carrier states that prior to Federal control it made no distinction in its
foremen and never recognized any footboard yardmasters. When Supplement
22 to G. O. 27 was issued by the U. S. Railroad Administration it put into
effect the differential of 40c to one of its yard foremen's rates. When Decision
No. 2 came out under Section 4, Article VII thereof, reading "superseding
rates established by or under the authority of the U. S. Railroad Administration,
72
and in lieu thereof, etc." it interpreted the words "superseded" and "in lieu
thereof" to mean the elimination of the differential rate which was established
by the Railroad Administration. Decision-If the engine foreman in question
is required to perform duties of yardmaster in addition to performing duties as
engine foreman, 40c per day in excess of foreman's rates is just and reasonable
and should be applied. C&S-Trainmen. Decision No. 484.
5. Telegraph Employees.
Request for increase in rates of pay of train directors and levermen to re-
store differentials previously existing between those positions and positions of
dispatchers, and signal maintainers, respectively. Decision-Evidence before
the Board shows that all of the orders of the Railroad Administration and
Labor Board affecting classes of employees involved have been properly ap-
plied and request of employees is, therefore, denied. TerRRAssnof StL-Tel.
Decision No. 611.
Dispute with reference to application of the reduction in rates of pay of
train dispatchers. Prior to 1917 a differential existed between rates of pay of
train dispatchers on certain tricks in the dispatching office of the carrier named.
In that year a readjustment was made which resulted in the equalization of
the rates of train dispatchers on all but one division upon which the differen-
tials were continued. G. O. 27 being predicated on the rates in effect in the
year 1915 had the effect of restoring the pre-existing diffrentials, and which
were maintained in the application of Decision No. 2. In the application of De-
cision No. 147 the employees sought to have the decreases applied in the manner
which would eliminate the differential between train dispatchers on the various
tricks, which the carrier declined to do. Decision-Board decides that imme-
diately upon receipt of this decision the employees and the carrier shall confer
and arrange for the distribution of the amount of decrease for the train dis-
patchers specified in Article XI of Decision No. 147 in the manner which will
comply with request of the employees for the elimination of the differentials
as between dispatchers operating the same division provided that nothing herein
shall be construed to result in increased cost to the operation of the carrier.
It is further ordered that the application of the decrease as herein provided
shall be made concurrently with the application of Addendum 4 to Decision
No. 147. HV-ATDA. Decision No. 720.
6. Signal Employees.
Claim that certain employee now classified and rated as signal maintainer
should be reclassified and rated as leading maintainer in accordance with Sec-
tion 3, Article V of the Signalmen's national agreement. Decision-Board
decides that this employee is not a leading maintainer within the meaning and
intent of the agreement and claim is therefore, denied. NYNH&H—Sig.
Decision No. 800.
DINING AND SLEEPING CAR EMPLOYEES' UNION-Brother-
hood of. See "Brotherhood of Dining and Sleeping Car Employees'
Union."
73
DISCIPLINE.
I. Violation of Rules.
A. Dismissal.
1. Dispatchers.
2. Clerks.
3. Train & Enginemen
4. Shop Crafts.
B. Suspension.
1. Train and Enginemen.
C. Demotion
1. Dispatchers
II. Unsatisfactory Service.
A. Dismissal.
1. Clerks.
2. Train and Enginemen.
3. M. of Way.
4. Shop Crafts
5. Express Employees
B. Suspension
1. Express Employees.
III. Irregularities.
A. Dismissal.
1. Express Employees.
2. Clerks.
3. Shop Crafts.
4. Train and Enginemen.
IV. Failure to Report for
Duty or Leaving Work
Without Authority.
A. Dismissal.
1. Train and Enginemen.
2. Clerks.
3. Express Employees.
4. Shop Crafts.
5. M. of Way.
B. Suspension.
1. M. of Way.
I. Violation of Rules.
A. Dismissal.
1. Dispatchers.
V. Insubordination and Refusing
Service.
A. Dismissal.
1. Train and Enginemen.
2. Clerks.
3. Shop Crafts.
4. M. of Way.
VI. Investigation.
A. Dismissal.
1. Dispatchers.
2. Shop Crafts.
3. Train and Enginemen.
B. Suspension.
1. Train and Enginemen.
VII. Intoxication.
A. Dismissal.
1. Train and Enginemen.
VIII. Miscellaneous.
A. Dismissal.
1. Shop Crafts.
2. Clerks.
3. Express Employees.
4. Signalmen.
5. M. of Way.
6. Train & Enginemen
7. Dispatchers
B. Suspension
1. Shop Crafts
2. Clerks
IX. Accidents, Collisions, Etc.
A. Dismissal
1. M. of Way
2. Shop Crafts
3. Train & Enginemen
X. Fighting and Altercations
A. Dismissal
1. Shop Crafts
Dismissal of train dispatcher for failure to observe operating rules. Re-
quest for reinstatement and pay for time lost denied. I&GN-ATDA.
cision No. 6.
2. Clerks.
De-
Request for reinstatement of two clerks dismissed from service for alleged
violation of carrier's operating rules 400 and 405, and disregard of principles
2 and 6 of Decision No. 119 of the Labor Board, these employees having been
instrumental in the publication of a monthly paper for the interest of the em-
ployees, but which paper had been ordered discontinued by the carrier. Car-
rier contends that rule 400 was violated in that some of the work performed
in connection with the publication of this paper was performed during the
time employees were on duty; that rule 405 was violated in that the em-
ployees engaged in the publication of a paper without first having secured
permission; and that principles 2 and 6 of Decision No. 119 were violated in
that the paper which was published contained matter destructive of morale and
74
good feeling which should exist between employees and the carrier. Em-
ployees take the position that the paper in question was published in the in-
terest of the organization; that the employees in question were authorized at a
regular lodge meeting to publish a paper for such purpose; and that the or-
ganization—not the employees-should be held accountable for their action.
Decision-In the opinion of the Board rule 400 was not violated as there was
no evidence submitted showing that any work in connection with the paper
was performed during the working hours of the employees; neither was there
any direct violation of rule 405 as the employees in question sought and ob-
tained permission to publish a paper, although they did deviate entirely from
the permission given. However, the contents of the paper were entirely at
variance with principles 2 and 6 of Decision No. 119 and particularly principle
2, and certainly were conducive of destroying any spirit of cooperation which
may have existed between the employees and the carrier. Request for rein-
statement is, therefore, denied. MK&T-Clerks. Decision No. 467.
3. Train and Enginemen.
Request for reinstatement with pay for time lost of engineer dismissed
account violation of operating rule 93 which provides that "second and third
class and extra trains must move within yard limits prepared to stop unless
the main track is seen or known to be clear." It is alleged that this engineer
who was in chain gang freight service on an extra with a train of 80 empty
cars entered the yard at a speed of 40 miles per hour, while the engineer and
the conductor, who was also riding the engine, estimated the speed at 20
miles per hour. The entire division is equipped with automatic block signal
system, and with block indicating track within yards to be clear, the engineer
claims to have entered the yard at usual speed and in accordance with general
practice. Decision-The right of the carrier to promulgate rules and place
interpretations thereon for the safe and successful operation of trains must
be recognized and it is the duty of the employees to comply with such rules,
bulletins and instructions. The evidence in this case indicates that if this en-
gineer had been willing to acknowledge his error and agree to more closely
observe the rules he would have been restored to the service. The Board,
therefore, decides that this engineer shall be reinstated, but without pay for
time lost, provided he shall give assurance to proper officials, of his willing-
ness to abide by the rules. It is further decided that the provisions of rule
114 of the engineers schedule which governs time during which engineers may
return to duty with restoration of further seniority shall not apply to restrict
effectiveness of this decision. Dissenting opinion filed in this case by four
members of the Board (Messrs. Higgins, Baker, Elliott, and Barton) for rea-
sons, viz: (1) this engineer was accused of violating a rule adopted by the
carrier for the safety of the traveling public, the employees, the property com-
mitted to the carrier for transportation, and the property of the carrier itself.
The superintendent personally witnessed the violation of this rule and repre-
sentatives of the man tacitly admitted that rule had been violated when, about
three months after his dismissal they asked the carrier as a matter of leniency
to reinstate the man without payment for time lost; (2) This case was given
consideration by all the carrier's officials in turn, from superintendent to the
vice-president, none of whom were willing to accede to request for reinstate-
ment although evidence indicates that at one period of the negotiations had
the engineer admitted he was at fault he would have been reinstated, but this
he positively declined to do. This particular condition is not set out at the
proper place in the decision of the Labor Board, which provides that the en-
gineer shall be reinstated if he gives assurance to proper officials of carrier of
his willingness to abide by rules. This condition is not sufficient as it fails
to stipulate the primary requirement, i. e., that the engineer should admit he
was at fault; (3) It is impossible for the Labor Board to be as familiar with
conditions surrounding cases like this as are the officials of the carriers in-
volved and bearing this in mind the Board should not presume to interfere
with discipline decided upon by a carrier until it has positive proof that a man
is not at fault; (4) rules are adopted by a carrier covering movement of trains
for protection and safety of all concerned, but unless such rules are under-
stood and obeyed by employees their value becomes nil and the only method
75
that carrier can adopt to insure rules being obeyed is to discipline a man for
disobeying them. In deciding to change or mitigate the discipline adminis-
tered by the carrier with its better knowledge of surrounding circumstances
the Board has assumed a responsibility not contemplated by the Transporta-
tion Act and has taken a step which tends to the breaking down of proper and
necessary discipline on all carriers. NP-E&F. Decision No. 480.
Request for reinstatement of conductor, with pay for all time lost, dis-
missed from service for moving his train in opposing direction against first-
class train. His train had passed certain point without sufficient time to
make the next station for the first-class train, when conductor discovered the
error and applied the air from the rear. After the train was stopped a back-
up signal was given to the engineer, and the train backed up to the south end
of the passing track against traffic and without flag protection. Decision-It
is felt that in consideration of all conditions surrounding this case the perma-
nent dismissal of this conductor was quite severe but the Labor Board cannot
condone the violation of important operating rules or interfere with manage-
ment in the application__thereof, and request for reinstatement is, therefore,
denied. B&A-C&T. Decision No. 498.
4. Shop Crafts.
Dispute in regard to reinstatement of boilermaker dismissed from service
for alleged violation of rule 25 of Federal Locomotive Inspection laws. De-
cision-Evidence presented in this case shows conclusively that conditions pre-
ceding and upon which the dismissal was based were such as to be entirely
within the control of the carrier, and that the employee in question was not
the responsible party. Therefore, the Board decides that the carrier was not
justified in relieving this employee from the service and he shall be rein-
stated to his former position with seniority rights unimpaired and paid for
time lost, deducting any amount he may have earned in other employment
since date of his dismissal. (Dissenting opinion filed in this case by Board
Member Baker for reasons, viz: (1) this boilermaker's inspection report
showed only four broken stay bolts while inspection conducted by boiler-
maker foreman showed nine broken stay bolts; (2) employees contend that
this boilermaker's dismissal should have been on grounds of incompetency,
if he failed to discover the proper number of broken stay bolts, and not on
charge that he violated rule 25; (3) responsibility of proper boiler inspection
is a very important one that devolves upon the carrier which must rely upon
its supervising forces to see that proper inspection is made. To absolve from
blame a man who failed by reason of incompetency, neglect or otherwise to
properly inspect boilers and report those which need attention, places a re-
sponsibility upon the Labor Board not contemplated by the Transportation
Act. Action taken in this case is not only an injustice to the carrier but may
result in a serious menace to the public and employees of the carrier, to say
nothing of damage to property). FtS&W-Shop Crafts. Decision No. 598.
B. Suspension.
1. Train and Enginemen.
Request that brakeman (colored) who was given thirty days suspension
for failure to flag passenger train, be taken out of service. Board without
jurisdiction, matter having occurred before passage of Transportation Act.
N&W-Trainmen. Decision No. 77.
C. Demotion.
1. Dispatchers.
Request for reinstatement of train dispatcher with full seniority rights
and pay for all time lost since date on which his services as train dispatcher
terminated. Employee in question was removed from position of train dis-
patcher account issuance of alleged improper train order, and permitted to
exercise his seniority rights in telegraph and station service. He then made
request for leave of absence which was granted, and at expiration of such
leave failed to return or report for duty and was, therefore, considered out
of the service. Decision-request denied. CM&StP-ATDA. Decision No. 274
76
II. Unsatisfactory Service.
A. Dismissal.
1. Clerks.
Where employee was dismissed for inefficiency, and following hearing road
agreed to reinstate to former position on probation for thirty-day period with
understanding if he made good he would retain former seniority without
prejudice; but clerk failed to start to work, claiming work offered was not
part of regular duties of his former position. Committee now questioning
whether or not terms of understanding were carried out. Decision-Clerk
should have accepted work to which assigned, and reinstatement therefore
denied. LA&SL-Clerks. Decision No. 43.
Request for reinstatement with pay for time lost of clerk dismissed account
frequent tardiness, excessive absence from duty, and unsatisfactory service.
Decision-Request denied. MV-Clerks. Decision No. 126.
Request for reinstatement and pay for time lost of clerk relieved from ser-
vice account unsatisfactory service and incompetency. Date was set for hear-
ing and investigation, but employee failed to appear. Decision-Request de-
nied. LA&StL-Clerks. Decision No. 275.
Request for reinstatement of clerk relieved from service due to inability
to perform the duties of his position satisfactorily. Decision-At hearing
conducted by Board it developed that the employees did not claim that this
employee should be returned to his former position, but contend that when
he was relieved from that position he should have been given a place in the
office or the right to exercise his seniority to a position for which he was
qualified. Decision-Request of employees denied. ACL-Clerks. Decision
No. 684.
2. Train and Enginemen.
Request that passenger brakeman, dismissed in April, 1919, for unsatis-
factory service, be reinstated and paid for time lost. Board without jurisdic-
tion account matter having occurred before passage of Transportation Act.
N&W-Trainmen. Decision No. 81.
Request for reinstatement, with pay for time lost, of certain yard brake-
men and conductors dismissed for inefficient service. Decision-Board decides
that request cannot be granted, as carrier was justified in taking action it did
to relieve a condition that apparently could not otherwise be corrected, and
claim is therefore denied. BRyofC-UAof RyEmpofNA. Decision No. 500.
3. M. of Way.
Request for reinstatement of section foreman discharged for incompetency
and unsatisfactory service. Request denied. NC&StL-MofWay. Decision
No. 204.
Request for reinstatement of section foreman dismissed from service for
alleged incompetency and general unsatisfactory service. Decision-Denied.
DL&W-MofW. Decision No. 254.
Request for reinstatement of section foreman dismissed account general
unsatisfactory service and for leaving his section crew during working hours.
Decision-Request denied. D&M-MofW. Decision No. 258.
Request for reinstatement of B. & B. foreman relieved from that position
account unsatisfactory service. Decision-Evidence submitted does not indi-
cate that this foreman was discharged, but rather relieved from position
of B. & B. foreman and extended opportunity to report for duty in another
capacity, which he failed to accept. Board decides carrier was justified in
action taken and denies reinstatement to position of B. & B. foreman. SP-
MofW. Decision No. 261.
Request for reinstatement and pay for time lost of B. & B. carpenter
who was removed from his position account alleged unsatisfactory service,
but given privilege of exercising his seniority rights to any similar position
in his seniority district, which he declined to accept. Decision-Based upon
evidence before it Board decides that employee shall be reinstated to former
position with seniority rights unimpaired, but pay for time lost is denied.
D&RG-MofW. Decision No. 329.
77
De-
Request for reinstatement and pay for time lost of section foreman dis-
missed from service account of failure to properly maintain his section.
cision-Board decides that action on part of carrier was justified and denies
claim for reinstatement. T&P-MofW. Decision No. 551.
4. Shop Crafts.
Request for reinstatement and pay for all time lost of machinist dismissed
from service account signing for work that had not been performed. Ma-
chinist in question was given work report reading "tighten back end of
quadrant." This report was O.K.'d by the machinist in question, but when
engine was turned over to the engineer he found that the bolts which hold
quadrant bracket to deck of engine were loose, and so reported the matter to
the carrier. Employees take the position that the quadrant and quadrant
bracket are two separate and distinct items and that the machinist performed
the work assigned to him in tightening the bolts which hold the quadrant to the
bracket, while the carrier claims that an order to "tighten the back end of
quadrant" means the complete operation of tightening both bracket and
quadrant. Carrier offered to transfer this machinist to another point and re-
tain him in service at said point pending a decision of the Labor Board and
that if the position of the carrier was sustained he would be retained at that
point so long as his services were satisfactory. Decision-Board decides that
dismissal of the machinist in question was not justified; that he shall be rein-
stated with seniority rights unimpaired; but that in view of his declination of
employment pending final disposition of the case he shall only be reimbursed
to the extent that he would have suffered a wage loss, if any, on the basis of
what he would have earned on the position offered as compared with what he
would have earned on his regular position. MK&TRy—ShC. Decision
No. 401.
Request for reinstatement with pay for time lost of machinist dismissed
from service for failure to reduce right main rod brass on certain engine, re-
sulting in the engine having to be returned to the roundhouse when the engineer
to whom the engine was turned over discovered that the work had not been
performed which caused delay of 55 minutes to train. Employees contend that
this machinist tried to move the crosshead back and forth to ascertain if there
was any lost motion, and not finding any lost motion proceeded to perform other
work listed on his report, and further in this connection that in a majority
of cases where brasses are reported by an engineer it is unnecessary to reduce
the brass on account of the pound being elsewhere and that it is not infre-
quent that engineers report work which, upon investigation, is found unneces-
sary to perform. Carrier holds that this machinist was properly disciplined
account his failure to perform work to which he was assigned and for falsi-
fying his work report thereby misleading the roundhouse authorities and al-
lowing the engine to go out in an unfit condition resulting in it being brought
back to the roundhouse to have the work done and thereby causing delay to
train. Decision-Based upon the evidence and considering all the circumstances,
the Labor Board decides that the discipline administered was too severe and that
this machinist should be reinstated to his former position with unbroken sen-
iority rights but without pay for time lost. Nothing in this decision, however,
should be construed as upholding the practice of employees signing for work.
which they did not actually perform. GNor-ShC. Decision No. 410.
5. Express Employees.
Dismissal of chief clerk account neglect of duty, failure of proper super-
vision, and generally unsatisfactory service. Request for reinstatement, with
pay for time lost. Denied. ARECo-Clerks. Decision No. 12.
Dismissal of clerk account alleged carelessness and indifference in per-
formance of his duties. Request for reinstatement with pay for time lost.
Denied. ARECo-Clerks. Decision No. 13.
Request for reinstatement of certain transferman who was relieved from
service on account of alleged inability to satisfactorily perform the duties as-
signed to him. Decision-Board decides that employee in question did not
have sufficient fitness and ability to handle the position to which he was assign-
78
ed when it became necessary to rearrange the work in connection with reduc-
tion in force, and request of employees for reinstatement is, therefore, denied.
However, when the forces in the seniority district, in which this employee was
employed, are increased he shall be permitted to return to any position in the
service to which his seniority, fitness and ability may entitle him. ARE-Clks.
Decision No. 817.
B. Suspension.
1. Express Employees.
Request for cancellation of 10-day suspension, and reimbursement for mone-
tary loss sustained thereby, given certain employee for alleged neglect of duty
in having failed to unload a shipment of freight from a car at certain point.
Employees contend that the employee involved did remove all of the freight
that it was possible for him to remove from the car, and placed same in the
warehouse in accordance with instructions and that he left in the car the
freight referred to in order to avoid exposure to theft and inclement weather.
Decision-Claim of employees denied. ARE-Clks. Decision No. 668.
III. Irregularities.
A. Dismissal.
1. Express Employees.
Dismissal of clerk account irregularity in handling accounts, etc. Request
for reinstatement with pay for time lost. Denied. ARECo-Clerks. Decision
No. 14.
Request for reinstatement of money clerk, dismissed account misrepresenta-
tion of facts at investigation concerning handling of money shipment, portion
of which had been abstracted while in transit. Decision-Denied. ARECo-
Clerks. Decision No. 134.
Dismissal of clerk account abstracting from superintendent's record room
a certain paper, a part of the records of the carrier. Request for reinstate-
ment with pay for time lost. Denied. L&N-Clerks. Decision No. 18.
2. Clerks.
Request for reinstatement, with pay for all time lost, of clerk dismissed from
service account alleged failure to lock stock pen gate after having unloaded
a car of cattle therein, and for allowing unauthorized persons access to baggage
room of the station. Decision-Board believes that discipline administered in
this case was exceedingly severe, and all purposes of discipline having been
fulfilled by the suspension, decides that he shall be reinstated to his former
position but without compensation for time lost. StLSW-Clks. Decision
No. 478.
3. Shop Crafts.
Claim for reinstatement with full seniority rights and pay for all time
lost of car inspector dismissed from service for alleged complicity in boot-
legging. Decision-Basing decision on the evidence before it, the Board decides
that dismissal of this car inspector was not justified and that he shall be re-
instated to his former position with seniority rights unimpaired and paid for
all time lost less any amount he may have earned at other employment since
date of his dismissal. GCL-ShCrf. Decision No. 399.
Request for reinstatement of employee dismissed from service account of
alleged improper drilling of locomotive frame. Decision-Board decides car-
rier was justified in discipline administered in this case and sustains such ac-
tion. It further decides, however, that in view of this employee's past record
and of the apprenticeship which had accrued to him in the capacity of step
rate mechanic his previous seniority shall be restored and if such seniority
entitles him to employment he shall be restored to the service. This decision
does not involve any payment for time lost. AT&SF-ShCrf. Decision
No. 599.
79
4. Train and Enginemen.
Request for reinstatement of engineer dismissed for sliding drivers on
engine and laying engine up with flat spots on drivers and making no report
of same, contention being that discipline administered was too severe. De-
cision-Dismissal of engineer was unwarranted, in view of his personal
record in the service, and he shall be reinstated without impairment in his
seniority. CTH&S-E&F. Decision No. 326.
Request for reinstatement of fireman with pay for time lost account refus-
ing to double back on run, claiming that he desired rest and had given proper
notice in accordance with bulletin posted by carrier. Decision-Board feels
that this fireman endeavored to comply with the terms of the bulletin by noti-
fying conductor that he did not wish to double back before leaving initial
terminal, but conductor failed to notify chief dispatcher until arrival at inter-
mediate point. However, on account of the conductor's failure to notify the
chief dispatcher so that necessary arrangements could have been made, the fire-
man should have endeavored to make the return trip rather than cause delay to
the train. Evidence shows that carrier offered to reinstate this fireman about
a month after his dismissal, but declined to pay for time lost. Committee rep-
resenting the fireman proposed that he be permitted to return to work and
refer question of pay to the Labor Board. The Board believes poor judg-
ment was exercised in declining this proposition since the offer made by the
carrier to reinstate this fireman without pay indicates that it was not felt
that his permanent dismissal was warranted. Nearly a year later the
carrier reinstated this fireman. thus in effect complying with the employees'
original request, which leaves for the Board's consideration only the request
for compensation for time lost. This fireman was out of service for about
a year, during which time his normal earnings as a fireman would have been
about $2,000.00. However, it is understood that he was employed as a la-
borer by other concerns and his loss thereby reduced to the extent of such
earnings. The Board decides, therefore, that this fireman shall be paid the
sum of $600.00 which partially compensates for his actual loss due to dis-
missal for an irregularity for which he was not wholly to blame. OWR&N-
E&F. Decision No. 550.
IV. Failure to Report for Duty or Leaving Work Without Authority.
A. Dismissal.
1. Train and Enginemen.
Dismissal of conductor and fireman account absent without permission.
Board without jurisdiction, account case occurring before passage of Trans-
portation Act. Interstate RR-EFCT. Decision No. 32.
Request for reinstatement of yard brakeman, with pay for time lost,
dismissed from service for taking lunch period on certain date without per-
mission from conductor and delaying work assigned to the crew of which he
was a member. Decision-Board has carefully considered evidence submitted
and while it indicates that the action taken by the carrier was rather severe,
the action of switchman absenting himself from place of duty especially
when the foreman of the engine was attending to duties which took him away
from the engine and the immediate vicinity where work was being per-
formed, was not justified. Therefore, claim of the employees denied..
P&LE-UAof RyEmofNA. Decision No. 492.
Request for reinstatement of yard foreman, with pay for time lost, dis-
missed from service account turning his train over to two helpers to finish
out the day and going up town. Employees claim that this yard foreman had
permission from the roadmaster to be absent a part of the afternoon in
question. On the other hand the carrier contends that roadmaster had no
authority to grant such permission and that this yard foreman was or should
have been familiar with the rule which places yard crews under the supervision
of the general yardmaster. Decision-Request of employees denied.
Int&GN-Trainmen. Decision No. 496.
80
2. Clerks.
Demotion of clerk, account failure to
duty upon expiration of leave of absence.
qualify, and failing to report for
Board decides employee, by own
act, automatically separated himself from service of carrier. SP-Clerks.
Decision No. 16.
Where employee was dismissed for inefficiency, and following hearing road
agreed to reinstate to former position on probation for thirty-day period with
understanding if he made good he would retain former seniority without prej-
udice; but clerk failed to start to work, claiming work offered was not
part of regular duties of his former position. Committee now questioning
whether or not terms of understanding were carried out. Decision-Clerk
should have accepted work to which assigned and reinstatement therefore
denied. LA&SL-Clerks. Decision No. 43.
3. Express Employees.
Request for reinstatement of clerk dismissed from service account absent-
ing himself without permission. Decision-Request denied. ARECO—Clks.
Decision No. 282.
4. Shop Crafts.
Request for reinstatement with full seniority rights and pay for time lost
of coach painter, dismissed account leaving his work without permission of
his immediate foreman; party referred to being the duly authorized local
chairman of the Carmen, and it was necessary for him to leave his work for
a short period of time to attend to a grievance of one of his fellow crafts-
men which required prompt action and permission could not be secured at the
time because of the temporary absence of the foreman. Decision-Party shall
be reinstated with full seniority rights and paid for all time lost, less any
amounts earned at other employment since dismissal. DM&N ShopCrafts.
Decision No. 146.
5. M. of Way.
Request for reinstatement with pay for time lost of section laborer, dis-
missed account voluntarily suspending work due to dissatisfaction over the
application of Decision No. 2. Denied. CGW-MofW. Decision No. 223.
B. Suspension.
1. M. of Way.
Claim of painter for pay for two days' suspension account failure to report
for work on Sunday. Decision—Denied. NYC-MofWay. Decision No. 216.
V. Insubordination and Refusing Service.
A. Dismissal.
1. Train and Enginemen.
Request for reinstatement and pay for time lost of fireman account dis-
missal alleging refusal of service due to fact fireman on return to terminal
and completing regular assignment declined further service, claiming needed
rest. Sustained. LA&SL-EF. Decision No. 36.
Request that colored yard brakeman be dismissed from the service, alleging
insubordination, account refusing to work with a particular engineer, claiming
said engineer had threatened to do him bodily harm. Matter was investigated
by road and brakeman permitted to return to work after loss of time pending
investigation. Request declined. N&W-Tr. Decision No. 80.
Re-
Request for reinstatement with pay for time lost of switchmen dismissed
account insubordination in connection with refusing to couple air hose.
quest denied. KCS-Tr. Decision No. 106.
Request for reinstatement with pay for time lost of yard conductor dis-
missed from service for insubordinate action toward the proper instructions
of the general yardmaster, employees claiming that this yard conductor was
dismissed without a hearing as called for by their agreement. Decision-Board
decides that this yard conductor shall be reinstated but without pay for
time lost. VirRy-Trainmen. Decision No. 526.
81
Request for reinstatement with pay for time lost of switchman and fire-
man dismissed from service because as alleged by the organizations they
responded to request of chief executives of their organization for certain
information as to the status of the wage questions on their line, which
information had been requested of the executives by the Labor Board because
of the receipt of advice by such Board from the officers of the company which
indicated that no dispute existed between the management and employees,
whereas the employees were at the time contending for payment of time and
one-half for overtime as in effect on other railroads in the territory. The
management states employees "were discharged from the service for having
positively declined" to carry out superintendent's instructions. Decision-This
appears to be a case of managing officers of the carrier declining to meet
with their employees through representatives of organizations. The Trans-
portation Act, 1920, specifically provides for handling of disputes through
organizations composed of employees and Board has explicitly dealt with
this subject in Decision No. 224, to which attention is hereby directed. It is
self-evident that no orderly adjudication of differences between employees
and carrier can be had if carrier declines to meet representatives of an "or-
ganization of employees or subordinate officials whose members are directly
interested in the dispute," but on the contrary dismissed from service em-
ployees who seek such recognition. After considering all the facts, the Board
decides that the employees in question shall be reinstated to their former
positions and paid for time lost since date of dismissal. Interstate RR-
T&F. Decision No. 528. (See reference to Decision 886 under "Decisions-
Violation of.”
Request for reinstatement of fireman with pay for time lost account refus-
ing to double back on run, claiming that he desired rest and had given proper
notice in accordance with bulletin posted by carrier. Decision-Board feels
that this fireman endeavored to comply with the terms of the bulletin by noti-
fying conductor that he did not wish to double back before leaving initial
terminal, but conductor failed to notify chief dispatcher until arrival at in-
termediate point. However, on account of the conductor's failure to notify
the chief dispatcher so that necessary arrangements could have been made,
the fireman should have endeavored to make the return trip rather than
cause delay to the train. Evidence shows that carrier offered to reinstate
this fireman about a month after his dismissal, but declined to pay for time
lost. Committee representing the fireman proposed that he be permitted to
return to work and refer question of pay to the Labor Board. The Board
believes poor judgment was exercised in declining this proposition since the
offer made by the carrier to reinstate this fireman without pay indicates that
it was not felt that his permanent dismissal was warranted. Nearly a year
later the carrier reinstated this fireman, thus in effect complying with the em-
ployees' original request, which leaves for the Board's consideration only
the request for compensation for time lost. This fireman was out of service
for about a year, during which time his normal earnings as a fireman would
have been about $2,000.00. However, it is understood that he was employed
as a laborer by other concerns and his loss thereby reduced to the extent of
such earnings. The Board decides, therefore, that this fireman shall be paid
the sum of $600.00 which partially compensates for his actual loss due to
dismissal for an irregularity for which he was not wholly to blame. OWR&N
-E&F. Decision No. 550.
2. Clerks.
Request for reinstatement of eleven checkers dismissed account insubordi-
nation. Denied. DL&W-Clerks. Decision No. 138.
Request for reinstatement of clerk dismissed from service for insubordi-
nation. Denied. Erie-Clerks. Decision No. 190.
Request for reinstatement of assistant division accountant dismissed
from service for alleged insubordination in refusing to work overtime to
catch up the work that had accumulated on his desk during his vacation.
period. This employee was granted a vacation with pay under a rule which
provided that employees would receive vacations with pay with understanding
82
that the other employees would keep up the work or that the employees who
received vacations would be required to catch up the work on their desk
without extra compensation. When this employee returned from his vaca-
tion he was informed that the work had accumulated to a sufficient extent to
require his working overtime and he thereupon insisted upon extra payment
for any overtime which he might work. He was not specifically directed
to work overtime and did not volunteer to do so. Decision-Board decides
that discipline in this case is not well sustained and orders that this employee
be reinstated with seniority rights unimpaired. However, as it is shown that
he failed to carry out his obligation under the rules governing vacations
with pay, claim for pay for time lost is denied. CM&StP-Clks. Decision
No. 767.
3. Shop Crafts.
Prior to issuance of National Agreement, carrier contracted out certain
roundhouse work, such as grease-cup filling, boiler washing, filling up boilers,
engine wiping, fire knocking, fire building, etc. After effective date of Agree-
ment, question of applying the provisions of said agreement to these men
employed by the contractor was taken up with the management by the repre-
sentatives of the shop crafts, but agreement could not be reached and matter
was submitted to U. S. R. R. Administration and decision received to the
effect that it was not the purpose of the agreement to permit such work as
filling grease cups to be contracted for. However, notwithstanding this deci-
sion, road failed to apply the National Agreement to said employees, and the
employees involved finally went out on strike. During strike the foremen
of the machinists on each of the three shifts in the roundhouse were required
to perform the work of the strikers. This was protested by the committee
representing the machinists and conference was held, at which the committee
was advised that any employees who refused to obey orders or in any manner
interfered with the employees of the contractor would be dismissed from the
service. The machinists, thereupon, held a meeting and voted that they would
perform no work unless the foremen in question were relieved from performing
the work let out to and coming under the jurisdiction of the contractor.
information was given to management, who notified the men "they should
consider themselves dismissed and out of the service." Later conferences
were held and the men resumed work. All these men continued to perform
their regular duties for several days, when notice was given by the manage-
ment that investigation would be held, and 18 machinists and 18 helpers of
first shift and six machinists and five helpers of third shift were discharged.
Further conferences were held at which road agreed to take back all except
one machinist. Request is made for reinstatement and pay for time lost of
all machinists and helpers. Decision-In judgment of Board both parties were
responsible for the conditions resulting in this dispute, the carrier being pri-
marily responsible because of failure to put into effect the rates of pay and
conditions of employment provided by National Agreement and interpretations
thereon; therefore all the machinists and helpers discharged shall be reinstated
with seniority unimpaired, but without pay for time lost. DM&N-ShC.
Decision No. 145.
This
Request for reinstatement with pay for all time lost of car inspector dis-
missed account insubordination; employees contending that investigation was
not held in accordance with Rule 37 of National Agreement. Decision-
Carrier violated rule, but inasmuch as carrier arranged for investigation two
days after the offense, which investigation employee failed to attend although
properly notified, reinstatement with pay for all time lost is not warranted
and the claim is therefore denied. CGW-SC. Decision No. 206.
Request for reinstatement with full seniority rights and pay for all time
lost of boilermaker dismissed from service account refusal to respond to
overtime call and to submit to written investigation. Evidence indicates
that on the night of February 7th it was found necessary to perform certain
boilermaker's work on an engine so that it might be made ready for train
which was to leave at 1:45 a. m. Boilermaker in question being the first listed
on the overtime board was called, whereupon he advised that he had worked
83
the two previous shifts and requested that someone else be called. The other
men on the overtime board were then called, but two could not be located
and the third man reported sick. The boilermaker in question was then again
called, but he again stated that he had worked the two previous shifts and did
not feel, under these conditions, that he should report. Arrangement was made
for investigation of this boilermaker's refusal to respond to call, but when
the representatives of the employees presented themselves and were advised
the stenographic record would be taken they refused to enter into the investi-
gation, taking the position that the Assistant Mechanical Superintendent had
previously assured them that written investigation would not be held for
minor cases, such as failure of the men to respond to calls, etc. This state-
ment was not denied by carrier, although they stated that it was not their in-
tention or understanding that written evidence would not be taken in cases
where either side deemed such record was warranted. Numerous state-
ments were made by respective parties-that of the employees purporting to
show that the master mechanic in charge has incurred the disfavor of his
men by discriminatory actions and carrier purporting to show that this boiler-
maker has caused considerable trouble, claiming that his refusal to work
overtime was in accordance with a concerted plan, calling attention to a
notice served on the carrier by a committee of which this boilermaker was
a member, wherein it was stated that the boilermakers had voted to discon-
tinue all emergency overtime. Decision-In view of all the evidence before it,
the Board decides that the employee in question shall be reinstated with full
seniority rights and paid for all time lost less any amount he may have.
earned at other employment since date of his dismissal. MP-ShCrf. De-
cision No. 402.
Request for reinstatement and pay for time lost of machinist dismissed
from service account alleged insubordination. Decision-Claim for reinstate-
ment denied. NYC-ShCrf. Decision No. 424.
4. M. of Way.
Request for reinstatement of section foreman dismissed from service for
insubordination to superintendent and leaving his gang to visit with neighbor-
ing foreman. Decision-Request denied. SP-MofW. Decision No. 253.
Request for reinstatement with pay for time lost of section foreman dis-
missed from service for alleged failure to carry out instructions contained in
a telegram which he failed to obtain from the train dispatcher's office. Em-
ployees claim, which is not denied by carrier, that a box had been placed on
the wall outside of the dispatcher's office from which this section foreman ob-
tained his mail and telegrams daily, and that said telegram was not in the
box when he called by the office in the morning. After completion of the day's
work this employee called at the dispatcher's office (it being his second trip
to such office during the day) and found the telegram together with a letter
from the road master, advising that he was discharged for failure to carry
out instructions. The carrier states that he should have inquired of the train,
dispatcher in the morning if any instructions were there for him. Decision-
Based upon the evidence submitted Board decides that management was not
justified in releasing this section foreman from the service and he shall, there-
fore, be reinstated to his former position with seniority rights unimpaired and
paid for all time lost less any amount he may have earned in other employment
since date of his dismissal. SAU&G-MofW. Decision No. 552.
Request for reinstatement with pay for time lost of certain laborers in ex-
tra work train gang dismissed from service. These men were engaged in shov-
eling ballast out of track and on the date in question the work train on which
the men were to return to home point was delayed and had not arrived at the
usual quitting time. The assistant foreman, therefore, requested the men to
continue at work until work train arrived, for which they were told they would
be paid the pro rata rate. The employees refused to work for pro rata rate,
claiming that they had previously been paid at time and one half for such
service and were not aware of Addendum 2 to Decision No. 119 which re-
established the pro rata rate. The employees further claim that the day was
84
extremely hot, (the thermometer registering 104 degrees F. in the shade)
and as the service was not of an emergency nature they were justified in re-
fusing to work overtime. Decision-Action of carrier is sustained. How-
ever, Board decides further that if the employees in question request reem-
ployment they shall not be discriminated against account of this occurrence
and if accepted shall enter service as new employees. DL&W-MofW. De-
cision No. 588.
VI. Investigation.
A. Dismissal.
1. Dispatchers.
Train dispatcher relieved from duty and given written instructions to re-
port to superintendent, but instead of doing so engaged with another company.
Request for reinstatement, with pay for time lost, account alleged dismissal
without hearing. Denied. I&GN-ATDA. Decision No. 7.
2. Shop Crafts.
Request for reinstatement with pay for all time lost of car inspector dis-
missed account insubordination; employees contending that investigation was
not held in accordance with Rule 37 of National Agreement. Decision-
Carrier violated rule, but inasmuch as carrier arranged for investigation two
days after the offense, which investigation employee failed to attend although
properly notified, reinstatement with pay for all time lost is not warranted
and the claim is therefore denied. CGW-SC. Decision No. 206.
Dispute in regard to dismissal of car cleaner account alleged violation of
rules 27 and 37 of the national shop agreement—no facts given. Decision-
Board understands that subsequent to filing this dispute an agreement has been
negotiated and consummated and that further negotiations will be conducted
with a view to disposing of this dispute. In view of this fact the case is con-
sidered closed without prejudice to the right of either party in making further
submission in connection therewith if it so desires. Pullman Co.-ShC. De-
cision Nos. 430, 451, and 453.
Dispute in regard to dismissal of car cleaner alleging violation of rule 47
of the national agreement-no facts given. Decision-Board understands that
subsequent to filing this dispute an agreement has been negotiated and consum-
mated and that further negotiations will be conducted with a view to dispos-
ing of this dispute. In view of this fact the case is considered closed without
prejudice to the right of either party in making further submission in connec-
tion therewith if it so desires. Pullman Company-ShCrf. Decision No. 434.
3. Train and Enginemen.
Question as to dismissal of certain yardmen without cause and refusal by
carrier to hear a committee. Decision-Evidence submitted at hearing devel-
oped that employees in question were taken out of service at various periods
account of their application for employment not being approved. The Board
is unable to determine wherein any rules were violated by carrier and case is.
therefore, dismissed. CM&StP-IntAof RyEofNA. Decision No. 489. CTH
&SERY-IntAof RyEm. Decision No. 490.
Request for reinstatement with pay for time lost of yard conductor dis-
missed from service for insubordinate actions toward the proper instructions
of the general yardmaster, employees claiming that this yard conductor was
dismissed without a hearing as called for by their agreement. Decision-Board
decides that this yard conductor shall be reinstated but without pay for time
lost. VirRy-Trainmen. Decision No. 526.
B. Suspension.
1. Train and Enginemen.
Claim for time held out of service, without investigation as per rule, and no
reasons given. Sustained. D&SL-EFCT. Decision No. 85.
85
VII. Intoxication.
A. Dismissal.
1. Train and Enginemen.
Request for reinstatement with pay for time lost of brakeman dismissed
account violation of Rule G (drinking). Board without jurisdiction, matter
having occurred prior to passage of Transportation Act. N&W-Trainmen.
Decision No. 74.
VIII. Miscellaneous.
A. Dismissal.
1. Shop Crafts.
Request for reinstatement of five men discharged by management; no
facts given. Decision-Application not filed according to law, and case there-
fore dismissed. Butler CountyRR—ReDeptAFofL. Decision No. 109.
Question as to dismissal of certain shop employees-no facts given. Decis-
&SF-ShCrf. Decision No. 404. M&StL-AFRRW. Decision No. 597.
WP-ShCrf. Decision No. 797. IHB-ShCrf. Decision No. 581.
Dispute in regard to dismissal of certain shop employees-no facts given.
Decision-Board understands that subsequent to filing these disputes an agree-
ment has been negotiated and consummated and that further negotiations will
be conducted with a view to disposing of the disputes. In view of this fact
the case is considered closed without prejudice to the right of either party in
making further submission in connection therewith if it so desires. Pullman
Co-ShCrf. Decisions Nos. 433, 436, 438, 441, 443, 444, 445, 446, 448, 449,
450, 452, 454, 455.
Question as to dismissal of certain shop employees-no facts given. De-
cision-Case withdrawn upon request of employees and docket closed. MP-
ShC. Decision No. 516. JtCarAssEP&JRYSC. Decision No. 708.
Request for reinstatement with pay for time lost of machinist dismissed
from service-no facts given. Decision-Board decides that this machinist
shall be reinstated with seniority rights unimpaired but without pay for time
lost. AT&SF--ShCrf. Decision No. 540.
Request for reinstatement with pay for time lost of blacksmith dismissed
from service-cause not shown. Decision-Board decides that upon evidence
submitted carrier was justified in administering discipline in this case, but in
view of this man's past record with the company and other circumstances cited
in this case he shall be reemployed with the same accumulated seniority with
which he was credited on the date of his dismissal, but shall not be paid for
time lost. The time lost shall be deducted from his accumulated seniority.
FtW&DC-ShC. Decision No. 590.
Request for reinstatement with pay for time lost of certain painter dis-
charged from service, cause not shown. Decision-This claim was submitted to
Board in ex-parte form, it being indicated by the employees that the carrier
failed to answer their communications. Upon the receipt of the employees'
position, a copy was forwarded to the carrier, and it was subsequently
traced for reply, but up to date no information has been received from said
carrier. At the oral hearing conducted by the Board, only the representatives
of the employees were present, and they submitted testimony in defense of
the employee's claim that he had been unjustly dismissed. The Board has
no evidence from the carrier to refute the statement made by the employees,
and therefore decides that the employee in question shall be reinstated to his
former position and paid for all time lost less any amount he may have earned
in other employment. DM&N-ShCrfts. Decision No. 926.
Dispute in regard to dismissal of certain shop employees. No facts given.
Decision-Board is in receipt of advice that case has been amicably settled,
and that no further action is desired on part of the Board. The docket is.
therefore, closed. L&N-ShCrfts. Decision No. 928.
2. Clerks.
Claim of check clerk for pay for time lost between date of dismissal and
86
date of reinstatement; no facts given. Denied.
No. 137.
DL&F-Clerks. Decision
Request for reinstatement of foreman dismissed from service; no facts
given. Denied. BEDTerm-Clerks. Decision No. 150.
Request for reinstatement of certain clerical employees dismissed from ser-
vice-no facts given. Decision-Request denied.ˆ SP—Clks. Decision No.
199. Penna-Clks. Decisions Nos. 262, 263, and 266. CRI&P-Clks. De-
cision 343. EP&SW-Clks. Decision No. 359. WM-Clks. Decision No. 366.
AT&SF-Clks. Decision No. 373. CM&StP-Clks. Decision No. 396. P
M-Clks. Decision No. 555. M&O-Clks. Decision No. 560. StJUD-Clks.
Decision No. 663.
Request for reinstatement of clerk dismissed from service-no facts given.
Decision-Board decides that request for reinstatement is denied, but orders
that back pay due under Decision No: 2 shall be paid the employee involved
for the period May 1, 1920 to July 16, 1920 in accordance with section 5 of
Interpretation 19 to Decision No. 2. PM-Clks. Decision No. 533.
Request for reinstatement of clerk dismissed from service-no facts given.
Decision Since dispute was submitted to Board the employee has been afford-
ed an opportunity by carrier to return to its service, which offer he has not
accepted on the grounds that he should be reimbursed for time lost since date
he left service. Request for reinstatement is, therefore, denied. CRI&P—
Clks. Decision No. 641.
Request for reinstatement of clerk dismissed from service-no facts given.
Case withdrawn by employees and file closed. MK&T-Clks.
MK&T-Clks. Decision No.
675.
3. Express Employees.
Request for reinstatement of certain express employees dismissed from
service for cause-no facts given. Request denied. ARE-Clks. Decisions
Nos. 178, 189, 270, 283, 296, 636 and 637.
Request for reinstatement with pay for time lost of two clerks dismissed
from service account forwarding to general auditor over their signatures a
resolution drawn up by the local lodge upon receipt of complaint made by an
employee of the Express Company (a member of the lodge), alleging unfair
treatment from the general auditor, upon receipt of which resolution the gen-
eral auditor requested the chairman of the local committee, and later the
lodge itself, to furnish him with the specific instances upon which the charges.
were made, or to withdraw the charges. This was not done, and the company
contends that the charges as contained in the resolution were false, libelous,
and subversive of discipline. Request of employees denied; action of em-
ployees in presenting the resolution was improper, as an employee considering
himself unjustly treated had the means to obtain relief in the method provided
for in Article IV of the Clerks' Agreement. ARECO-Clerks. Decision
No. 177.
4. Signalmen.
Claim for reinstatement and pay for time lost of certain signal employees ;
no facts given. Denied. B&A-Signalmen. Decision No. 207.
5. M. of Way.
Request for reinstatement and pay for time lost while out of service by
two section foremen dismissed account membership in labor union to which
the men working under them also belonged. Decision-Action of carrier in
discharging these men for cause named was unfair, unjust and unreasonable
and men shall be reinstated with full seniority rights; and be reimbursed for
losses suffered, less any amounts earned since date of dismissal, provided
there was on this carrier an existing rule or established usage guaranteeing to
employees pay for loss occasioned by unjust suspension or dismissal. (Board
states its decision is based on just and reasonable grounds rather than on the
strict legal rights of the parties involved.) Butler County RR-MofW-De-
cision No. 224.
87
Request for reinstatement of section foreman dismissed from service-no
facts given. Decision-Request denied. L&M-Mof W. Decision No. 309.
Request for reinstatement with pay for time lost of section foreman dis-
missed from service-no cause given. Decision-Based upon evidence sub-
mitted Board decides that discipline administered to this section foreman was
too severe and he shall, therefore, be reinstated to his former position with
seniority rights unimpaired, but not paid for time lost. CenRyofNJ-MofW.
Decision No. 579.
6. Train and Enginemen.
Claim for reinstatement of conductor with pay for all time lost-no facts
given. Decision-Case withdrawn from consideration of Board by agreement
between interested parties. CStPM&O-C&T. Decision No. 493.
Claim for reinstatement of conductor dismissed from service-no facts
given. Decision-Matter complained of having occurred before passage of
Transportation Act, by which Labor Board was created, Board decides it is
without jurisdiction and application is, therefore, dismissed. CStPM&O—C&
T. Decision No. 495.
Request for reinstatement of brakeman and certain yardmasters, with pay
for time lost-no facts given. Decision-Claim denied. Houston&Texas
Cen.-C&T. Decision No. 497. T&OCen-RRYardmastersof Amer. De-
cision No. 499.
7. Dispatchers.
Request for reinstatement of Train Dispatcher dismissed from service for
cause no facts given. Decision-Request denied. CM&StP-ATDA. De-
cision No. 364.
B. Suspension.
1. Shop Crafts.
Claim of car repairers for compensation for five days suspended by carrier—
no facts given. Decision-Claim denied. B&LE-ShCrf. Decision No. 234.
2. Clerks.
Claim for pay for time lost by clerk covering period under suspension.
Decision-Claim denied. Penna-Clks. Decision Nos. 264 and 265.
IX. Accidents, Collisions, Etc.
A. Dismissal.
1. M. of Way.
Request for reinstatement with pay for time lost of section foreman dis-
missed from service for alleged responsibility in leaving switch open, caus-
ing derailment of passenger train. Decision-Request denied. T&P-MofW.
Decision No. 398.
2. Shop Crafts.
Request for reinstatement and pay for all time lost of car inspector dis-
missed from service for alleged responsibility in causing derailment to three
cars. Decision-Based upon evidence before it Board decides that this car
inspector was unjustly dismissed and that he shall be reinstated to his former
position with seniority rights unimpaired and paid for all time lost less any
amount he may have earned in other employment since date of his dismissal.
GCL-ShCrf. Decision No. 403.
De-
Request for rehearing in connection with discharge of certain car in-
spector, which case was decided by the Board in its Decision No. 403.
cision-Request for rehearing is denied. GCL. Decision No. 925.
3. Train and Enginemen.
Request for reinstatement of brakeman dismissed for responsibility for
88
collision resulting in damage to flat car. Decision--Request denied. KCS-
Trainmen. Decision No. 527.
X. Fighting and Altercations.
A. Dismissal.
1. Shopcrafts.
Request for reinstatement with pay for time lost of blacksmith dismissed
from service for fighting on duty. Decision-Board decides that the manage-
ment was not justified in dismissing this blacksmith from the service and he
should be reinstated to his former position with seniority rights unimpaired,
but without pay for time lost. C&NW-ShCrfts. Decision No. 539.
DISMISSALS.
DISPATCHERS.
See "Discipline."
Pay for time lost due to sickness. See "Time lost-Pay for."
Application of Decision 2 to. See “Decision 2—Application of.”
For Cases Involving Discipline-See "Discipline."
Increases Granted by Labor Board, May 1, 1920, to-See "Art. XI,
Decision No. 2 and Art. VIII, Decision No. 5."
Decreases, Effective July 1, 1921-See "Art. XI-Decision No. 147."
Rules and Working Conditions for-See "Decision No. 721.”
1. Chief.
2. Trick.
1. Chief.
Question as to application of rules governing working conditions for train
dispatchers to chief train dispatchers. Decision This dispute is returned to
the employees and carriers for conference and further consideration in accord-
ance with Section 1 of General Instructions of Decision No. 721. MStP&
SSTM-ATDAsso. Decision No. 810. WM-ATDAsso. Decision No.
811. MC. Decision No. 812. LI. Decision No. 813. D&RG. Decision No.
814. SP. Decision No. 815. D&RG. Decision No. 848. I&GN. Decision
No. 849. CM&St.P.-Decision No. 850. S.P. Decision No. 866.
2. Trick.
Claim of dispatcher for an additional day's compensation account of work-
ing, in addition to his own, the territory of a dispatcher off sick, no relief
dispatcher being available. Denied. C&NW-ATDA. Decision No. 195.
Where, on account of sudden illness of second trick dispatcher, first
trick dispatcher was required to remain on duty four additional hours and third
trick dispatcher to report four hours in advance of his regular assignment
and continue on his regular assignment, claim is made by these dispatchers
for overtime worked in excess of regular assignment. Dispatcher who was
off sick on day in question was allowed full day's pay. Decision-Claim
denied. C&NW-ATDA. Decision No. 272.
Dispute with reference to negotiation of rules for the government of train
dispatchers. Decision-Case withdrawn by parties at interest, and file closed.
NY&LB-ATDA. Decision No. 883. ACL-ATDA. Decision No. 884.
DISPLACEMENT RIGHTS. See "Seniority."
DISPUTES. Method of presentation to Labor Board. See "Order No. 1.”
DOUBLING.
Claim of dispatcher for an additional day's compensation account of work-
ing, in addition to his own, the territory of a dispatcher off sick, no relief
dispatcher being available. Claim denied. C&NW-ATDA. Decision No. 195.
89
DULY AUTHORIZED COMMITTEE. (See also "Representation
Rights.")
Where certain employees coming under the provisions of National Shop
Agreement are members, of the American Federation of Railroad Workers
and desire that organization handle their grievance matters, question as to
whether under Rule 35 of the Shop Agreement, that organization not being a
party to said agreement, has the right to handle matters coming under the
Shop Agreement, and its committee be recognized as "the duly authorized
local committee" referred to in Rule 35 of said agreement. Employees sus-
tained. B&M-AFofRRW. Decision No. 70.
DURATION OF AGREEMENT. See "Agreements-duration of."
EFFECTIVE DATE. See "Date Effective."
EIGHT-WITHIN-TEN HOUR RULE.
Question as to whether the eight-within-ten hour rule of Sup. 24 is manda-
tory, or whether present basic day rule, which is more favorable, may be
retained. Decision-Have option of accepting or rejecting in its entirety the
eight-within-ten hour rule. T&P-EF. Decision No. 93.
Question as to whether carrier is privileged under the rules of agreements
in effect, to rearrange short turnaround passenger runs for purpose of avoid-
ing the payment of excess mileage or overtime if by doing so they establish
interdivisional runs. Decision-Parties at interest agreed upon a settlement
and withdrew case from consideration by Board. C&EI—CTE&F. Decision
No. 494.
ELECTION SERVICE.
Claim of certain employees for time lost in the months of March, April,
May and August, 1920, account election service, these employees being re-
quired to serve at election polls in compliance with notice from State Board
of Election Commissioners on various days in the months named, and were
not paid by the carrier for the time absent from duty. They were, however,
paid by the Board of Election Commissioners for each day they served, and
now claim compensation from the carrier at their regular rate of pay for time
they were absent from duty. Decision-Claim denied. StLSF-Člks.
cision No. 473.
ELECTRIC RAILWAYS.
De-
Question as to jurisdiction of Labor Board under the Transportation Act,
1920, over certain interurban electric_railways. Application dismissed. Board
without jurisdiction. S&ER&PCo--Interurban Rwy-FDD&S—P&N_L&WV
-PERwy-D&I_H&M-CLS&SB-NYW&B-W&OD — EFCT — Clerks-
Disprs-Shopmen-Tels-MofW--Signalmen. Decision No. 33.
ELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES OF EMPLOYEES-Method
of. See "Representation Rights."
ELECTRICIANS.
Claim that certain employees, now classified as linemen, should be classified
and paid as electricians under Rules 43 and 140, and as road mechanics under
Rule 15, of the National Agreement. Decision-Employees in question are
performing work specified in Rule 140 and shall be classified and paid as
electricians in accordance with Rule 43, and employees regularly assigned to
90
road service shall be paid in accordance with Rule 15. OWRR&N Co-ShCrafts.
Decision No. 212.
EMERGENCY SERVICE.
Where rule provided that when a sufficient number of men have been
assigned to certain pool runs, no emergency trainmen will be put on, but
trainmen already assigned, accumulated at other end of run, will be dead-
headed at company's expense when needed; or if emergency arises necessi-
tating use of emergency trainmen, and layover of the assigned trainmen of
terminals exceeds eighteen hours, they will either be deadheaded or paid over-
time for such layover, claim is made by certain conductors for overtime for
time so held, alleging use of emergency crews in violation of the rules. Board
without jurisdiction, matter occurring before passage of Transportation Act.
N&W-ORC(a)&(b). Decision No. 83.
Claim of telegrapher not regularly assigned to Sunday service for com-
pensation under the overtime and call rules of agreement for work per-
formed on Sunday in place of another employee. This telegrapher was re-
quired to work in place of wire chief, who laid off account serious illness
in his family, from 4 p. m. to midnight and was paid for such service at
the straight time rate of the position which he was filling. Decision-Claim
denied. CRI&PRy-Tel. Decision No. 374.
Question as to whether certain crossing watchman, paid a monthly rate
under Section (a-12), Article V of the National Maintenance of Way Agree-
ment should be paid overtime at pro rata rate for ninth and tenth hour,
and time and one-half thereafter for all time worked in excess of his regular
monthly assignment. On certain days, this watchman was required to serve
three hours in addition to his assignment, for which service he was not paid.
an amount, in addition to his regular salary, covering his regular monthly
assignment. Decision-Section (a-12) of Article V, provided for the estab-
lishment of a monthly rate to cover all services rendered, and further pro-
vided that if the present assigned hours were increased or decreased, the
monthly rate should be adjusted. The Board does not construe the lan-
guage of this rule to prohibit the temporary assignment of employees cov-
ered thereby to longer hours in case of emergency-this condition apparently
having been recognized when the rule was written. The position of the man-
agement in connection with this case is, therefore, sustained, but this decision
should not be construed to permit the assignment of employees, covered by the
above rule, to longer hours for any considerable period of time without
the payment of overtime therefor, and in no case unless an emergency exists.
AT&SF-MofW. Decision No. 808.
EMERGENCY ROAD SERVICE-See "Road Service-pay for."
EMPLOYEES COVERED BY NATIONAL AGREEMENTS. See
"National Agreements."
EMPLOYMENT OF MEN ON PREFERENTIAL BASIS.
Request for new rule providing that vacancies occurring in the ranks of
yardmen will be filled with promotable men; also that the organizations repre-
sented in the agreement be insured not less than 85 per cent of the men em-
ployed in the yard, and be given preference in employment. Denied Board
decides present rule or practice is just and reasonable. N&W-Trainmen.
Decision No. 66.
ENGINE SERVICE EMPLOYEES.
Increases granted by Labor Board to-See "Art. VI of Decision 2."
Application of Decision 119 to—See “Int. 2 to Decision 119.”
Decreases, effective July 1, 1921, covering-See "Decision 147 and Add.
1 and 2 thereto."
91
ง
ENGINES. (For basis for applying increases under Decision 2 to certain
types of engines, see "Decision 2—Application of.”)
1. Handling.
2. Requests for seats on.
3. Rates for new types of.
1. Handling.
Question as to how Decision 2 shall be applied to existing rule providing
arbitrary allowance to engineers and firemen for handling engines with or
without trains, between shops and passenger stations at certain points. Decision
-Board decides question relates to increasing arbitrary rates and special
allowances which are closely interwoven with certain rules, and which rules.
will be given consideration by Board when question of rules is taken up for
consideration. L&N-EF. Int. 9 to Decision No. 2.
Request for additional compensation for handling passenger equipment
trains between certain points. Decision-Board decides no change shall be
made at this time. NYC (west)-EF. Decision No. 11.
2. Requests for Seats on.
Requests that seats be placed on Mallet and Class M-2 engines. Manage-
ment stated one-half has been equipped and estimates remainder would be
equipped on or before June 1, 1921, which Board decides properly disposes of
matter. N&W-Trainmen. Decision No. 76.
3. Rates for New Types of.
Question as to rates of pay for locomotives borrowed temporarily from
another carrier, which locomotives are of a different type than those owned
and operated by carrier before the Board. Decision-Rates on borrowed
engines shall be same as rates paid by carrier for its locomotives which come.
within the corresponding "weight on drivers" classification. LA&SL-E&F.
Decision No. 308.
ENGINE SUPPLY MEN.
Question as to whether certain employees assigned as engine supply men
should come under Section 8, Art. III, of Decision No. 2. Carrier classified
these men as laborers and applied increases under Sec. 6., Art. III. Decision-
Employees in question come under Sec. 8, Art. III, of Dec. 2, and shall be paid
accordingly. C&EI-MofW. Decision No. 331.
ENGINE WATCHMEN.
Question as to what constitutes "isolated point" as applied to engine watch-
men referred to in section (a-12), Article V of the national maintenance of
way agreement. Decision-Board decides that fair definition of the language
"engine watchmen at isolated point" as incorporated in Section (a-12), Article
V of the Agreement would be-Engine Watchmen at isolated points are those
located at other than division terminals, where there is no supervision and
where maintenance work is not performed on locomotives, except engine watch-
men at such points whose duties, connected with taking care of engines, such
as, knocking and building fires, and service of like character, consume more
than 50% of their time on duty in which latter case they should be excluded
from the provisions of section and article referred to. C&NW-MofW. De-
cision No. 524.
Claim of certain engine watchmen for hourly basis of payment and back
pay from March 1, 1921. On March 1, 1920, these employees were compen-
sated at an hourly rate, which hourly rate was increased ten cents per
hour in accordance with Section 8, Article 3, of Decision 2. Effective March
1, 1921, rates of pay of these employees were established at a monthly rate
in accordance with Section (a-12), Article V of the National Maintenance
of Way Agreement, on the basis of the hourly rate in effect March 1, 1920,
92
plus increase of $20.40 per month as provided in Decision No. 2. Employees
contend that the term "isolated point" should not apply to the point in
question, and that these employees should be continued on an hourly basis.
Decision-The Board in its Decision No. 524 gave its interpretation of
Section (a-12), Article V of the National Maintenance of Way Agreement,
which interpretation shall govern in determining whether or not the position.
in question should be rated on a monthly basis. If under such interpretation
the position should be rated on an hourly basis, proper adjustment shall
be made for the period subsequent to March 1, 1921, account having been
paid on a monthly rated basis. C&NW-MofW. Decision No. 897.
Dispute concerning establishment of monthly rate of pay for certain
engine watchman. On March 1, 1920, this employee was receiving an hourly
rate of pay, which rate was increased in accordance with Section 8, Article
III, of Decision No. 2. On March 15, 1920, under Section (a-12), Article V
of the Maintenance of Way Agreement, a monthly rate was established on
the basis of the hourly rate in effect prior to May 1, 1920 (the effective
date of Decision No. 2), plus $20.40, as provided in Decision No. 2, for
monthly rated employees. Employees claim that the monthly rate should
have been determined by applying the provisions of Section (a-12) of Article
V of the agreement to the hourly rate established in accordance with Section
8, Article III of Decision 2. Decision-Board decides that the carrier was
justified in establishing a monthly rate for the employees in question in
accordance with Section (a-12) of Article V, but that such monthly rate
should have been predicated upon the hourly rate and assignment in effect
at the time such change was made, and the employee in question shall be
reimbursed to the extent he has suffered a wage loss account the improper
application for the period from July 1, 1921, until the proper adjustment is
made. C&NW-MofW. Decision No. 899.
EQUALIZATION OF RATES-Request for. See "Inequalities in Rates
of Pay-adjustment of."
EXCEPTED POSITIONS.
Question as to whether certain positions listed in submission are to be
considered personal office force and excepted from provisions of Clerks' Na-
tional Agreement. Positions listed in decision to be classified as personal
office force. StLSF-Clks. Decision No. 39.
Question whether positions of "Matrons" at stations come within the scope
of the Clerks' National Agreement and governed by provisions of said agree-
ment. Decision-Yes, "Station attendants" as defined in Art. 1, Rule 1, Par.
2. SouPac-Clerks. Decision No. 38.
Claim that Chattanooga, Tennessee, does not come within the class of
“larger stations" as referred to in Paragraph (b) under title "Exceptions,"
Rule 1, Art. 1, Clerks' National Agreement, and that position of chief clerk
to the agent at this point comes within scope of National Agreement and
should be bulletined for bid account individual increase allowed such position.
Claim denied. NCStL-Clerks. Decision No. 87.
Where, on May 3, 1920, agreement was reached establishing certain seniority
districts and "Excepted Positions," question as to proper seniority date of
clerk who has been continuously employed on one of the specified seniority
districts since August, 1907, holding positions classified as "personal office
force" from that date until June, 1917, since which date has been filling a
non-excepted position. Employees contend seniority should only date from
June, 1917, when he was appointed to the non-excepted position, while road
holds seniority should date from August, 1907, when he entered service on
his present seniority district. Decision-Rule 29 of Clerks' National Agree-
ment is not retroactive in its aspect; therefore, contention of carrier is sus-
tained. MP-Clerks. Decision No. 132.
Question as to whether the position of depot foreman comes within the
scope of the Clerks' National Agreement, carrier holding that the depot fore-
man at the station in question has direct supervision over other employees who
93
&
are sub-foremen within the meaning of Section (b), Rule 1, of Article 1,
of the National Agreement, and that such position is, therefore, excepted from
the provisions of the agreement. Decision-Carrier sustained. CCC&StL-
Clerks. Decision No. 201.
Claim that classification of position as "red cap" is improper, as major por-
tion of the work performed is work generally recognized as janitor's work, and
position should. therefore, come within the scope of the clerks' national agree-
ment and be subject to the provisions thereof. Decision-Position in question
is properly classified as red cap, and, therefore, does not come within the scope
of the Clerks' National Agreement as defined in Article I thereof. SP-Clks.
Decision No. 246.
Question as to whether position of assistant superintendent, vehicle service,
comes within the scope of agreement as defined in Article I thereof. Decision-
Position in question does not come within scope of agreement. ARECo-Clks.
Decision No. 294.
Question as to whether certain positions in express office classified as clerk
and stenographer is included within the scope of the express employees agree-
ment, as defined in rule 1, Article I thereof. Employees contend that in the
office in question there are employed in addition to the chief clerk, a secretary
to the superintendent, a payroll clerk, two miscellaneous clerks and two stenog-
raphers and that under the agreement there should be only two personal office
force positions in said office, viz: chief clerk and one private stenographer,
and that the duties of the position in question consisting of checking payroll
accounts are not of a confidential nature which could be construed to come
within the term "personal office force." Decision-Board decides that the po-
sition in question does not come within the scope of the agreement referred
to, and claim of the employees is denied. ARECo-Clks. Decision No. 370.
Question as to whether certain specified positions of crossing watchmen
shall be excepted from the provisions of Section (a-12), Article V of the
national maintenance of way agreement. Decision-After reviewing the evi-
dence submitted it is the opinion of the Board that the position of the carrier
wherein it is claimed that none of the positions should be excepted, is not
justified, neither is the claim of the employees that all crossings should be ex-
cepted justified, and the Board decides that a further conference should be held
with the duly authorized representatives of the respective parties with view to
complying with the last paragraph of Section (a-12), Article V, at which time
the employees should confine their case to specified crossings or positions which
it believes merit consideration. The rates established by the carrier in 1917
should have no bearing on the questions at issue and carrier should consider the
case on basis of conditions existing at present. DL&W-MofW. Decision
No. 406.
Question as to whether position of personal stenographer to shop account-
ant at certain point should be included within the scope of the clerks' national
agreement as defined in rule 1, Article I thereof. Decision-Board decides
that position in question was included within the scope of the agreement and
that the employee who made application therefor should have been assigned, and
she shall, therefore, be reimbursed for the monetary loss sustained by reason
of not being assigned to the position from February 10th to April 15th, 1921,
the date the position was abolished, less any amount earned in other employment
during that period. CM&StP-Clks. Decision No. 626.
Question as to whether position of storekeeper in roundhouse at certain
point comes within the scope of the clerks' national agreement. Decision-
Board decides that this position does not come within the scope of the agree-
ment and request of employees that position in question be bulletined for bid
is therefore denied. LV-Clks. Decision No. 696.
Question as to (1) whether position of stable foreman at certain point
comes within the scope of the national agreement governing express em-
ployees, and (2) proper compensation under the agreement for two employees
engaged as hostlers at the same point. Employees contend that position of
stable foreman comes within the scope of the agreement and should be given
a regular assignment as required by the rules and that the assigned working
hours (7 a. m. to 12 noon and 4 p. m. to 7 p. m.) of the two hostlers
94
are in conflict with Rule 45 of the agreement which provides for 8 hours
work within a spread of 9 hours. Decision-Evidence before the Board
shows that the stable foreman in question is in full charge of the stable and
has the authority to employ and dismiss employees under his jurisdiction. In
the case of the hostlers it appears that when Supplement 19 to G. O. 27,
effective May 1, 1919, was issued they were placed on a straight 8-hour basis,
but after working on this basis for some little time they voluntarily requested
the stable foreman to restore their previous hours of service, which were 8
hours within a spread of 12, in order that they might have the benefit of a
noon time siesta to conform with the custom of certain classes of laborers
in the territory in which they were employed, and an agreement was drawn up
and signed by them under the terms of which they have specifically ex-
pressed a preference for the hours of service which were in effect at the time.
this controversy arose. Request of employees is therefore denied. ARE-
Clks. Decision No. 700.
Question as to whether position of chief clerk to agent at certain point
comes within the scope of the clerks' national agreement. Decision-Board
decides that the point in question is one of the larger stations as referred
to in paragraph (b), under title "Exceptions," Rule 1, Article I, of the
national agreement, and claim of employees is therefore denied. PM-Clks.
Decision No. 730.
When the national agreement became effective, carrier in question took
position that certain stations, about 70 in number, were larger stations, where
the agreement would not apply to the chief clerks to the agents at such
points, while the employees claim that there were no stations on the line that
would come under this classification, but later agreed to except ten of the
larger stations. Failing to reach an agreement on all of the stations in-
volved, a joint submission was made to the United States Railroad Adminis-
tration, and Board of Adjustment No. 3 issued Decision No. 733, which
provides that chief clerks to local freight agents should be subject to the
provisions of the clerks' national agreement. This decision was not put into
effect, but after conferences between the representatives of the employees
and the carrier, an agreement was reached in March, 1921, which provided
that chief clerks to the agents at ten stations numerated therein should be
excepted from the rules of the clerks' national agreement, and that effective
April 1, 1921, the agreement would apply to all other chief clerks to freight
station agents. Employees are now requesting additional compensation that
would have accrued to chief clerks at certain of the stations if the rules of
the national agreement had applied to their positions during the period
March 1, 1920, to April 1, 1921. Carrier contends that at the conferences
held in March, 1921, no reference was made to the question of retroactive
pay nor any claim presented by the employees at that time, and furthermore,
that it was specifically set forth in the memorandum of agreement dated
March 23, 1921, that it would be effective April, 1921, and that the em-
ployees accepted and promulgated this agreement.
Decision-Claim of em-
plovees denied. ACL-Clks. Decision No. 835.
EXPENSES AWAY FROM HOME-ALLOWANCE OF.
During certain seasons of year when ore trains are being handled, it
becomes necessary to increase dispatching force at certain point, and as
such work requires experienced dispatchers, the claimant, being the junior
qualified dispatcher on the division, was transferred from his regular point
to point in question for the period during which the ore shipments were
being handled, and is contending that under the rule he should be allowed
the necessary actual expenses incurred by him while away from his estab-
lished headquarters. Decision Board construe rule involved as requiring
reimbursement for actual expenses incurred when required to leave estab-
lished headquarters to relieve dispatchers at other points. Evidence in this
case indicates dispatcher in question was not required to leave his estab-
lished headquarters for purpose of relieving a dispatcher at another point,
and claim is, therefore, denied. C&NW-ATDA. Decision No. 273.
·
:
95
EXPRESS EMPLOYEES.
"Decision 3-Application of.”)
Decision No. 3.
(For application of Decision 3 to-See
Increases granted by Labor Board to.
Question whether certain baggage and express agents are employees of
railroad company and governed by provisions of Clerks' National Agreement,
or employees of Express Company and governed by Express Employees'
Agreement, or employees of both and governed by both agreements. Decided
that such men are employees of Express Company and should be governed
by Sup. 19 to G. O. 27, Express Employees' National Agreement, and Decision
3 of Labor Board. LA&SL-Clerks. Decision No. 86.
Where working hours of chauffeurs and helpers in the vehicle department
of American Railway Express Company were from 7 a. m. to 4 p. m. on
Mondays, and from 8 a. m. to 5 p. m. on other days of week, and where, after
due notice, starting time of these employees was changed to 8 a. m. on Mon-
days and 9 a. m. on other days of week, request is made that working hours
previously in effect be re-established. Decision-Request denied. Change in
starting time was made in accordance with rules governing employees in this
branch of service. ARECo-EDC&C. Decision No. 112.
Where railroad agent is allowed a flat sum by Express Company to handle
its transfer business and pay salary of such employees as he deems necessary,
and which employees are engaged by, report to and paid directly by the agent,
claim is made by Clerks' organization that a clerk so employed is in fact an
employee of the Express Company, and that such position comes within the
scope of the Clerks' National Agreement and Decision 3 of the Labor Board.
Decision-Claim denied. ARECo-Clerks. Decision No. 184.
Question as to application Decision 3 to "part time" employees engaged in
the handling of express shipments for varying periods of from one to four
hours per day after 6 p. m.; petitioners requesting that increases authorized
by said decision be applied to their rate as of May 1, 1920. Decision-Claim
denied. ARECo-13employees. Decision No. 187.
Decreases effective August 1, 1921, covering. Decision No. 217.
Rules and Working Conditions For. See "Decisions 722 and 723."
Request for increase in rates of pay of express messengers assigned to
certain service on trains of one road to equalize with rates of messengers on
trains of another road between the same points, employees contending that
work performed and hazards and responsibilities on trains of both roads
are identical and that the disparity constitutes an inequality which should
be adjusted. Decision-Request denied. ARECo-Clks. Decision No. 267.
•
Request for establishment of free sleeping quarters for messengers in
train service in North Pacific Department. Employees state it is practice to
provide sleeping quarters for express messengers at many terminals, and
contend that failure to provide free sleeping quarters for the messengers in-
volved in this dispute is a discrimination. Decision-Evidence shows that
free sleeping quarters for messengers are not required by any order or
agreement and their establishment is entirely voluntary on part of carrier.
Claim of employees is, therefore, denied. ARECo-Clks. Decision No. 295.
Dispute in connection with application Rule 79 of national agreement
to position in the Regional Accounting Department, employees contending
that Rule 79, which provides that positions (not employees) shall be rated,
supersedes the provision of Supplement 19 to G. O. 27, governing rates for
inexperienced employees, and that the employee involved, although having
less than one year's experience, should have received the full rate of the posi-
tion which he was filling. Decision-Claim of employees denied. ARECO-
Clks. Decision No. 297.
Claim that employee who is employed only "part time" should have
received an increase of sixteen cents per hour from effective date of Decision
No. 3. Carrier states employee in question was attending school and was
employed on an hourly basis for short periods of time, and contends he is
specifically excepted from provisions of agreement under exception (a),
Rule 1, Article I. Decision-Claim of employees denied. ARECo-Clks.
Decision No. 298.
Where employee was awarded bulletined position, but not placed thereon
96
for thirty days thereafter, claim is made for pay of awarded position from date
assignment was posted. Decision-Board decided employee is entitled to rate
of awarded position from expiration of ten-day period allowed the carrier
for assignment, under the rule. ARECo-Clks. Decision No. 304.
Where certain employees were required to work on specified holidays,
but later given a day off in lieu thereof, claim is made that under the agree-
ment they are entitled to extra day's pay for work performed on such holidays.
Decision-Claim sustained. ARECo-Clks. Decision No. 305.
Where during the month of March, 1920, certain express employees re-
ceived increases of from $5.00 to $10.00 per month, question is raised as to
whether the increases granted under Article II of Decision 3 should be added
to rates in effect 12:01 a. m., March 1, 1920, or to the rates which include the
increases granted after March 1st. Decision-Labor Board does not consider
the increases granted the express employees referred to as increases made for
purpose of adjusting inequalities within the meaning and intent of Article II
of Decision 3 and decides that increases granted under Decision 3 should be
added to rates of pay in effect at 12:01 a. m., March 1, 1920. ARECo-Clks.
Decisions Nos. 361 and 363.
Where two employees who were out of service account reduction in force
filed application for position newly created in another seniority district and
placed on bulletin in accordance with rules and to which a junior employee
from another point was assigned, claim is made that the senior applicant
should have been given preference to the position. Carrier contends that only
obligation on their part with respect to the appointment was to give employees
preference over non-employees and this requirement was fulfilled. Decision-
The employees admit that none of the employees referred to in the dispute
held seniority rights in the seniority district in which the position in question
was posted. The employee assigned to the position had previously held a
position in the carrier's service at another station which was abolished upon
establishment of the district accounting bureau at the point in question. Claim
of employees is therefore denied. ARECo-Clks. Decision No. 362.
Request for equalization of rates of pay of two positions in the settlement
department at certain point, employees contending that the work of the two
positions is identical and that the rates of same should be equalized, in ac-
cordance with section (b) Article I of Supplement 19 to General Order 27.
Carrier contends that Supplement 19 to General Order 27 does not provide
for equalization of rates of employees doing same class of work but only em-
ployees doing the same work; furthermore that the higher rate is paid to an
employee who was formerly cashier and whose position was abolished in con-
solidation of the express companies at the point in question. Therefore, the
payment of the higher rate is for a special or extraordinary reason within the
meaning and intent of section (b) Article I of Supplement 19. Decision-
Evidence before the Board shows that the two employees involved were not
performing the same work at the same agency within the meaning and intent of
section (b), Article I of Supplement 19, and request of the employees is, there-
fore, denied. ARECo-Clks. Decision No. 369.
Request for equalization of rate of pay of position of assistant paymaster
with rate of position of bookkeeper at same point, employees contending that
the duties performed by these two employees are practically the same and that
under provisions of Article I of Section (e) of Supplement 19 to G. O. 27, the
rates of pay should be the same, and request equalization in accordance with
section (b) of Supplement 19. Decision-Board construes section (b) Article
I Supplement 19 to provide for equalization of rates for the same work at the
same agency. Evidence in this case indicates that the work of the two posi-
tions is not the same work within the meaning and intent of section referred
to and denies request of employees. ARECo-Clks. Decision No. 371.
Where rates of pay of certain positions were increased by carrier, claim
is made that as the increases in the rates of the positions in question were
not the result of negotiations of a general character that such changes
constituted new positions which should be bulletined in accordance with rule
10 of the agreement. Carrier contends that these increases were made in
conjunction with general increases granted employees in express service
1
97
throughout the country where economic conditions made increases necessary,
that no protest has been made by the clerks' organization with reference to the
increases nor any application received from any employee in the office for the
positions increased, and that to comply with the employees request would require
bulletining thousands of positions in express service which were affected by the
general increases made during the early part of the year 1920. Decision-
Records of Labor Board show that during the period January to August, 1920,
general increases were granted to express employees throughout the country for
the purpose of retaining in service employees who were being attracted to
more remunerative employment elsewhere. It further appears that positions
involved were increased in the month of June, 1920, and no protest filed with
carrier in regard to bulletining the positions increased until October of that
year. Decision-Request of employees is, therefore, denied. ARECo—Clks.
Decision No. 360.
Question as to whether the increases granted employees in express service
under Article II should be added to rates in effect 12:01 a. m. March 1, 1920,
or to rates which include increases granted by carrier since that date. Em-
ployees contend that the increases granted after March 1, 1920, were for the
purpose of adjusting inequalities within the meaning, intent, and language of
Decision 3 and that the increases should, therefore, be added to the rates es-
tablished after March 1, 1920. Decision-Board decides that increases granted
under Article II of Decision 3 shall be added to rates of pay in effect
12:01 a. m., March 1, 1920, and claim of employees is, therefore, denied.
Amer RyExp-Clks. Decision No. 670. ARE-OofRE. Decisions Nos. 673
and 681.
Promulgation by Labor Board of rules covering working conditions for
employees of the American Railway Express Company and Southeastern Ex-
press Company, effective March 1, 1922, which the Board has decided as just
and reasonable. ARE-Clks.etal. Decision No. 722. SExpCo-Clks.
cision No. 723.
De-
Question as to whether rules and regulations in effect on the American
Railway Express Company were binding upon the Southeastern Express Com-
pany when the latter company commenced operation on the line of the carrier
over which the American Railway Express Company operated prior to May 1,
1921. Decision-Board decides that the Southeastern Express Company was
not bound by any rules and regulations of employment previously in effect for
employees of the American Railway Express Company. Dissenting opinion
filed by Board Member Wharton, who takes the position that he cannot sub-
scribe to any procedure which in effect reduces wage and working conditions
adversely affecting the employees in the service of a carrier, unless or until the
intent and spirit of the law has been complied with, and where disagreement
results, the dispute is submitted to the Board, and decided upon its merits; that
when the Southeastern Express Company commenced actual operation on May
1, 1921, it began performing the same identical service as that of the American
Railway Express Company and continued in its service practically all of the
employees who had been in the service of the American Railway Express Com-
pany but established lower rates of pay and less favorable working conditions
than those in effect on the American Railway Express Company; and that
neither the provisions of the Transportation Act, nor decisions or rules of
procedure promulgated by the Labor Board were observed by this carrier in
fixing wage rates or conditions of employment. SEECo-Clks. Decision
No. 821.
Dispute with reference to application of decreases in rates of pay au-
thorized in Decision No. 217 to employees of the Southeastern Express Com-
pany. On July 11, 1921, the Labor Board rendered Decision No. 217 authorizing
certain decreases for employees of the American Railway Express Company.
The Southeastern Express Company was not a party to the dispute upon
which Decision No. 217 was rendered, but the decreases authorized therein
were applied to certain employees in its service. Employees contend that this
action on part of the carrier should not have been taken without proper
conference and agreement with the employees. Decision-Board decides
that the Southeastern Express Company, in reducing wages without seeking
1
98
conference with the representatives of the employees interested, has acted in
conflict with Section 301 of the Transportation Act, 1920, and with Order
No. 1 of the Board, and that it shall restore to all employees affected by
the application of said decision the difference between the rates of pay they
have received since August 1, 1921, and the rates of pay they would have
received had the wages in force during the period prior to that date remained
in effect. SEE-Clks. Decision No. 822.
Claim of certain employees for overtime account of being required to
sleep in office after completion of their regular assignment. Employees con-
tend that as the employees named are required to be at the office during
specified hours to act as guards of the premises and perform certain janitor
work, and are also required to make arrangements to have their places filled
when they desire to lay off and compensate employees who relieve them
for the service rendered, they are entitled to pay at established overtime rate for
all time required to be on duty after completion of their regular assignment.
Carrier admits that these employees slept in quarters provided for their use, but
states that in accepting their positions they fully undertsood that they were
expected to avail themselves of the sleeping quarters provided for them,
and contends that under the circumstances claim for overtime work or pay-
ment of any other compensation for sleeping on the premises of the carrier
is unjustified. Decision-Claim of employees denied. ARE-OofRE. De-
cision Nos. 900 and 907.
Question as to application of Decision No. 3 to certain employees classi-
fied as guards and custodians, employees contending that these men are bona
fide employees of the carrier and are entitled to the increase specified for em-
ployees in their class of service in Section 4, Article II of Decision No. 3.
Carrier states that it has been a practice of long standing to hire individuals
to perform guard service and pay them a flat rate to cover such service; that
the individuals referred to are engaged in other employment and come within
the category of casually employed laborers who devote only a part of their
time from outside business; that their employment is incidental and intermit-
tent and, therefore, they are properly excluded from Supplement 19 to G. O.
27, from the Transportation Act, from the decisions of the Labor Board and
from the National Agreement covering express employees. Decision-It
appears that these so-called guards or custodians have been engaged in this
same work for a period of from four to eight years, that statement filed
with Board showing number of days worked indicates they customarily per-
form from 15 to 20 days service per month and the Board decides, therefore,
that Decision No. 3 shall apply to the employees referred to from the effective
date thereof. ARE-Clks. Decision No. 932.
Request of Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Hand-
lers, Express and Station Employees for rehearing on Decision No. 821,
in which it was decided that rules and regulations, and conditions of employ-
ment in effect on the American Railway Express Company were not binding
upon the Southern Express Company when that company commenced operation
on the lines of the carrier over which the American Railway Express Com-
pany operated prior to May 1, 1921. Decision-The Board after due con-
sideration of the motion of the employees named, for rehearing of the dis-
pute referred to overruled said motion and declined to reopen said case.
Clks. Decision No 948.
Application of the Southeastern Express Company for rehearing on De-
cision No. 822 in which it was decided that the Southeastern Express Com-
pany in reducing wages as authorized by the Board in Decision 217 (SEECo.
was not a party to Decision 217), and without seeking conference with the
representatives of the employees interested, had acted in conflict with Section
301 of the Transportation Act, 1920, and in conflict with Order No. 1 of the
Labor Board, and that wages previously in effect should be restored and the
employees affected, paid the difference between the rates they have received
since August 1, 1921, and the rates they would have received had the wages
in force during the period prior to that date remained in effect. Decision-
The Board, after due consideration of the motion of the carrier named,
for rehearing of the dispute referred to overruled said motion and declined
to reopen said case. SEECo. Decision No. 949.
99
EXTRA GANG FOREMEN. See "Foremen-Extra Gang."
EXTRA OR RELIEF EMPLOYEES. Pay For.
Claim of extra clerk, working two eight-hour shifts within a twenty-four
hour period, for time and one-half rate for work performed on second shift.
Decision-Claim denied. N&W-Clks. Decision No. 279.
EXTRA SERVICE.
Claim of brakeman for minimum passenger day for extra service performed
before beginning regular assignment. Board without jurisdiction, account
matter having occurred before passage of Transportation Act. SP-C&T.
Decision No. 318.
Claim for additional pay by extra brakeman working in short turnaround
passenger service.
Decision-Parties at interest agreed upon a settlement
in this case and withdrew same from consideration by the Board. NWP-
C&T. Decision No. 346.
Claim of conductor and crew for one day's additional pay for handling
water car to extension spur, less than one-half mile beyond yard limits, after
completion of regular day. Decision-Parties at interest agreed upon a set-
tlement in this case and withdrew same from consideration by the Board.
NWP-C&T. Decision No. 348.
Dispute with reference to proper compensation for an employee required
to perform extra service on train on which there was no regular express
messenger equipment. This employee was paid the helper's rate of pay, but
contends that he was performing the regular duties of a messenger and is
entitled to the messenger's rate of pay. Decision-Claim denied. ARE-
Clks. Decision No. 662.
Dispute with reference to proper compensation for employees engaged
as attendants on trains on which there were no regular express messengers.
The employees contend that while they were performing this service they were
in full charge of the shipments in their care, and should, therefore, be paid
the express messenger's rate. Carrier states that these men were simply
acting as attendants; that they did not perform any work analogous to that
of messengers, except to carry waybills and remain with the car to protect it in
the event of its being cut out of the train. In other words, they were per-
forming guard duty and were properly paid in accordance with Rule 73,
Section (c) of the agreement. Decision-Claim of employees denied. ARE
Clks. Decision No. 728.
A regularly assigned fireman became ill on his return trip and it was
necessary to relieve him en route, and there being no extra fireman avail-
able at the point of relief, a brakeman was called. There was at this relief
point, however, one fireman who was regularly assigned to a switch engine
and who was off duty at the time, and the employees are claiming that as
this fireman was available to relieve the fireman who was taken sick that
he should have been used instead of the brakeman on the run in question
and on account of not having been so used should be allowed a mini-
mum day's pay. Decision-Claim of the employees is not supported by
any rule in the agreement and is, therefore, denied. MK&T-CTE&F. De-
cision No. 773.
Claim of messenger for pay for extra trip between certain points-
no facts stated. Dispute closed in accordance with understanding reached
between representatives of employees and carrier at hearing held by the
Board. ARE—Clks. Decision No. 845.
Dispute regarding allowing extra compensation to levermen for operating
street crossing gates and for attending or caring for semaphore lights in
connection with interlocker. Case withdrawn by parties at interest and
file closed. CB&Q-Tel. Decisions Nos. 861 and 862.
FEMALE EMPLOYEES-STATE LAW REQUIREMENTS AS
TO HOURS OF SERVICE FOR.
Claim that senior employee (female) had sufficient fitness and ability and
should have been awarded bulletined position. Decision-Board decides em-
100
ployee had sufficient fitness and ability, but account position in question requir-
ing certain amount of overtime work, due to State Law prohibiting female
employees from working in excess of eight hours in any one day, etc., position
of carrier is sustained. SP-Clks. Decision No. 269.
Dispute in connection with bulletined position not awarded to employee
holding seniority. Carrier contends that employee's experience has been
limited to work which would not qualify her for the position in question,
and further that as the position applied for occasionally requires working
of overtime of more than one hour on certain days, the state law prohibit-
ing the employment of women in excess of certain hours would prevent this
employee's assignment to said position. Decision-Basing decision on evidence
submitted, and provision of the state law, Board decides that position of carrier
is sustained. UP-Clks. Decision No. 345.
FERRY BOATS. Railroad operated.
Increases granted by Labor Board to masters, mates and pilots of-See
"Art. X, Decision 2."
FERRY MEN ON RAILROAD-OPERATED FLOATING EQUIP-
MENT. See "Marine Employees."
FINAL TERMINAL DELAY. See "Terminal Delay."
FINAL TERMINAL SWITCHING. See "Switching by Road Crews."
FIRE CLEANERS.
Shall fire-cleaners at certain point who are receiving 4½c per hour less than
fire-cleaners at terminals, which differential was previously established, be
paid same rate as fire-cleaners at terminals. Decision-No. MPRR-MofW.
Decision No. 358.
FLOATING EQUIPMENT. Railroad operated.
Request of employees on railroad-operated floating equipment in port of
San Francisco for increases in wages and changes in rules and working con-
ditions. Denied.
Denied. MVP-SP-AT&SF-WP-MM&PofA-MEBA-FBUof
Cal. Decision No. 20.
FOOTBOARD YARDMASTERS. Application of Decision 2 to-See "De-
cision 2-Application of."
FOREMEN. (For discipline cases-See "Discipline.")
1. Section
2. Bridge and Building
3. Extra Gang
4. Labor
5. Depot and Warehouse.
1. Section.
Where certain differentials in rates of section foremen, which had been
eliminated by Supplement 8, were voluntarily restored by company as of April
1, 1920, question as to right to maintain said differentials under Decision 2,
eliminated by Decision 2 and Board can take no action. Rutland RR-MofW.
Decision No. 49.
Where section foreman, in connection with other duties, is required to
supervise coal chute operations, claim is made that under Section (p), Article
V of National M. of W. Agreement, such employee is a composite worker
and entitled to rate of pay applicable to coal house foremen. Decision-
Claim denied; preponderating work of the foreman in question is that of
section foreman, and in accordance with Section (p) of Article V, should be
classified and paid as such. C&NW-MofW. Decision No. 250.
2. Bridge and Building.
Where B&B foremen are paid a fixed monthly salary covering all service
rendered without additional compensation for overtime, Sunday or holiday
work, nor deduction made from pay in case of short absence from work, claim
is made that increases under Decision 2 should be computed on basis of 240
101
times 15c per hour, instead of 204 times the 15c rate. Denied-Disposed of
by Int. 1 to Decision 2. Rutland RR-MofW. Decision No. 47.
3. Extra Gang.
Question as to whether overtime for extra-gang foremen shall be paid for
under the provisions of Section (a-7) or Section (a-8) of Article V of the
National M. of Way Agreement. Decision-Gang-foremen in question prop-
erly come under and shall be paid in accordance with Section (a-7) of Article
V. NOT&M-MofW. Decision No. 180.
Claim of foreman for compensation during period from December 19th
to January 3rd, when extra gang over which he had charge was laid off.
Employees call attention to Rules (c-2) and (f) of Article 2 of National
M. of W. Agreement, contending that the foreman was not instructed re-
garding his duties during period referred to and as he was employed by the
month and had not asked for leave of absence he was still subject to in-
structions of the roadmaster who should have issued instructions for his re-
tention and guidance during time extra force was laid off. Decision-Rules
quoted in employee's position expressly provide for retention of senior men
in case of force reduction or temporary assignment; however, it does not
appear from evidence that the employee in question made the proper effort
to take advantage of these provisions, and claim for compensation for period
laid off is therefore denied. N&W-MofW.
N&W-MofW. Decision No. 231.
4. Labor.
Question as to increase under Decision 2 to be applied to labor foremen,
in shops and engine houses, whose duties consist of supervising engine wipers,
laborers, tool checkers, fire tenders, and like positions. Decision-Analogous
service (referred to in Article XII, Decision 2) as applied to supervisory
forces, entitled the supervisors in question to a monthly increase of not less
than 204 hours times 13c, or $26.52 per month, which amount represents the
minimum monthly increase accruing to any class of supervisory forces specifi-
cally referred to and coming under Decision 2. Int. 21 to Decision No. 2.
Question as to whether foreman and laborers at coal chutes should be
covered by the national maintenance of way agreement. Decision—While
the national maintenance of way agreement did not specifically mention foremen
and laborers at coal chutes, the information in possession of the Board is to
effect that practically all carriers recognized and applied that agreement to
this class of employees. Therefore, the Board decides that foremen and
laborers at coal chutes should have been considered as coming under the pro-
visions of the agreement referred to. The word "foremen" as used herein is
intended to refer to foremen in charge of laborers and not foremen in charge of
mechanics, or others holding responsible supervisory positions at large coal-
ing plants. IC-MofW. Decision No. 777.
5. Depot and Warehouse.
Question as to whether the position of depot foreman comes within the
scope of the Clerks' National Agreement, carrier holding that the depot fore-
man at the station in question has direct supervision over other employees who
are sub-foremen within the meaning of Section (b), Rule 1 of Article 1, of
the National Agreement, and that such position is, therefore, excepted from
the provisions of the Agreement. Decision-Carrier sustained. CCC&StL-
Clerks. Decision No. 201.
Question as to whether rule 49 of the clerks' national agreement is appli-
cable to position of warehouse foremen at certain point, employees claiming
that this rule does not apply to the position in question. Decision-Board
does not consider the positions of warehouse foremen to be analogous to those
defined as "other office and station employees" in paragraph 2, rule 1 of Ar-
ticle I of the clerks' national agreement. Therefore, rule 49 of this agreement
is not applicable to this position, and position of employees is sustained. StL
'SW-Clks. Decision No. 479.
102
FREIGHT SERVICE.
Increases granted by Labor Board to Engineers, Firemen and Helpers in—
See "Sec. 2, Art. VI-Decision 2."
Increases granted by Labor Board to Conductors and Trainmen in "Sec.
3, Art. VII-Decision 2." See "Sec. 3, Art. VI-Decision 5."
Decreases, effective July 1, 1921, covering Engineers, Firemen and Helpers
in-See "Sec. 2, Art. VI-Decision 147."
Decreases, effective July 1, 1921, covering Conductors & Trainmen in—
See "Sec. 3, Art. VII-Decision 147."
GALVESTON WHARF CO.
Request that Decision No. 2 be applied to said carrier and the organi-
zations of employees included therein. Granted. Add. 3 to Decision No. 2.
GENERAL OFFICE CLERKS. Right to negotiate separate agreement
from that of "line" clerks-See "Representation Rights."
GRIEVANCES. Handling of
(For method of presentation to Labor Board-See "Order No. 17.")
Where certain employees coming under the provisions of National Shop
Agreement are members of the American Federation of Railroad Workers
and desire that organization to handle their grievance matters, question as to
whether under Rule 35 of the Shop Agreement, that organization not being a
party to said agreement, has the right to handle matters coming under the
Shop Agreement, and its committee be recognized as “the duly authorized
local committee" referred to in Rule 35 of said agreement. Employees sus-
tained. B&M-AFofRRW. Decision No. 70.
GROUP CLASSIFICATION FOR VOTING FOR EMPLOYEE
REPRESENTATION-SCOPE OF.
Question as to whether the positions enumerated shall be considered as
coming within the scope of group 1 of Decision No. 220, in connection with
the voting of clerical employees in the service of the carrier in accord-
ance with Decision No. 583. Decision No. 220 divides the employees in cler-
ical and station service into three groups for purpose of taking a ballot, and
representatives of the respective parties to this dispute are unable to agree as
to the allocation of certain classes of employees in the said groups. Decision—
The Board after due consideration of all evidence presented, decided to and did
classify, for the purpose of voting for clerical representation in accordance
with Decision 583, the positions in dispute in accordance with the grouping of
employees set up in Decision 220. MC-Clks. Decision No. 829.
GUARANTEES.
1. Daily
2. Monthly
3. Mileage.
1. Daily.
How shall Decision 2 be applied. to guaranteed minimum daily rate for
engineers and firemen in short turn-around passenger service. Decision-Add
80c to rate specified. UP-EandF. Int. 13 to Decision No. 2.
Shall the daily guarantee in passenger service established by Sup. 15 for
engineers and firemen be increased eighty cents by Art. VI of Decision 2. De-
cision-Yes. SAL-E&F. Ints. 10, 14, 22, to Decision No. 2.
Claim for daily guarantee in assigned mine run service on days no service
is begun, under schedule rule. Sustained. D&SL-EFC&T. Decision No. 34.
Question as to whether freight house truckers at certain point shall be
paid for work performed on days on which they were notified in advance
they would not be required to work. Decision-Evidence before the Board
indicates this dispute covers a difference of opinion between the employees and
the carrier as to proper application of certain rules, and it appears that no
103
claim of a specific nature presented in accordance with the employees' under-
standing of the rules involved are pending for adjustment. Case is, therefore,
removed from the docket and file closed. WMRy-Clks. Decision No. 377.
Question as to proper application of rule 50 of the clerks' national agree-
ment in the case of three hourly rated employees who were released before
completion of their 8 hour assignment and in the case of two hourly rated em-
ployees who reported for work at regular starting time, not having been no-
tified otherwise, and were sent home without working. Employees contend
that under rule referred to the men who report for work at their regular start-
ing time are entitled to three hours pay therefor; and that the men who were
released before completion of their assignment are entitled to not less than 8
hours pay therefor. Carrier declined the claim on the ground that these are
the classes of employees referred to in the last sentence of rule 50 which reads.
"this guarantee will not be construed to apply to those who are employed to
take care of fluctuating work that can be handled by regular forces." De-
cision-Position of employees is sustained. PM-Clks. Decision No. 566.
Claim of certain employee for reimbursement for time lost incident to re-
duction in days of regular weekly assignment. Account decrease in business
certain employees were required to work 4½ days a week or 20 days per month
which resulted in a reduction in their earnings. Employees contend that this
action on the part of the carrier was in conflict with rule 66 of the clerks'
national agreement. Decision-Board decides that reduction of the day's work
below six per week was in violation of rule 66 of the agreement and that the
clerk in question shall be reimbursed for the difference between the compensa-
tion he has received since reduction went into effect and compensation he
would have received if he had been permitted to work the full number of hours
constituting his regular assignment. G&SI-Clks. Decision No. 572.
Claim of certain daily rates employees for pay for Saturdays during cer-
tain period on which days they were notified in advance not to work. It ap-
pears that following conference with representatives of the employees arrange-
ments were made for one of each of the seven gangs handling freight at the
station in question to lay off one day each alternate week. Subsequently it
was arranged to close the warehouse on Saturday of each week. Employees
claim that this latter arrangement was made without conference or their consent,
whereas carrier states, and it is not denied, that at least one of the committee-
men representing the employees at the point in question stated that the arrange-
ment for closing the freight house on Saturday of each week was more de-
sirable than laying off one gang each alternate week. Decision-Board decides
that inasmuch as the employees accepted this arrangement without complaint
and made no protest until five days after the six-day week had been restored,
claim of employees is denied. PM-Clks. Decision No. 640.
In order to effect certain economies and avoid a reduction in force, carrier
circulated a petition among the employees for purpose of securing their
consent to a reduction in the number of working days to five per week, which
petition was signed unanimously and the five-day per week assignment placed
in effect. Employees are now contending that this change in the weekly as-
signment, below six days, constituted a violation of Rule 66, and request that
employees involved be reimbursed for the day of each week that they were
laid off during the period said arrangement was in effect. Decision-Claim
of employees denied. LV-Clks. Decision No. 732.
Question as to right of carrier to lay off entire force of laborers and
their gang. leaders in the stores supply department on Saturday of each week
in order to curtail expenses. Employees contend that carrier has no right to
lay off the entire force one day each week when the proper reduction in
expense can be accomplished by first laying off the junior men in the gangs,
citing Section 1, Article V of the National Agreement in support of their
contention, and claiming that the men in question are entitled to pay for each
and every Saturday lost account of said reduction. Decision-Board decides
that carrier did not violate the meaning and intent of Section 1, Article V,
and denies payment account reduction in the days per week as outlined.
CI&L-MofW. Decision No. 771.
Dispute regarding right of carrier to close telegraph office on certain days
104
of the week on account of fluctuation in business. Employees contend that
paragraph (b), Article 10 of the agreement, provides for the payment of
overtime for work performed in excess of regular hours; that under said
paragraph carrier pays for all work performed by employees outside of
regular hours at the overtime rate, thus indicating that assigned hours are
considered regular hours and that paragraph (e) of the same article read-
ing "employees will not be required to suspend work during regular hours
or to absorb overtime," prohibits the carrier from suspending an employee
during his regular hours and certain specified holidays. Carrier takes the
position that paragraph (e) of Article 10, does not cover a case where
offices are closed on certain days of the week on account of sudden fluctuation
of business, where there is no necessity for the services of a telegrapher, but
that the rule was intended to prevent suspending an employee for a portion
of the day and pay him for a fractional part thereof, and further contends
that to agree to the contentions of the employees would guarantee pay for
306 days each calendar year whether employees worked or not. Decision-
Claim of employees denied. B&O-Tel.
B&O-Tel. Decision No. 789.
Where roadway gang was laid off one day per week for certain period, claim
is made by foreman who supervised this gang, and who was paid on a monthly
basis, for time deducted from his pay on the days on which the gang was laid
off. Decision-(a) If foreman is compensated on a monthly basis for all
services rendered, not including the excepted services provided for in Section
(h) of Article V, including time worked in excess of the regular hours or
day's assignment for the general force, it is clearly the intent of Section (h)
that such foreman would receive not less than the monthly rate so established,
provided he was ready and available to perform the service required; (b) if
foreman is compensated on a monthly basis and was paid overtime for work
performed after 8 hours and all work performed on Sundays and holidays, no
valid claim can be made for time lost under the provisions of Section (h)
Article V, of the agreement. BR&P-MofW. Decision No. 896.
2. Monthly.
Claim for pay under monthly guarantee for 10-day period during which
held for service but not used account snow blockade. Sustained. D&SL
EFCT. Decision No. 27.
Claim for pay under monthly guarantee for 10-day period during which
line was blocked account of snow; bulletin having been posted discontinuing
all regular passenger service during such period. Denied-Service discon-
tinued by proper notification. D&SL-EFCT. Decision No. 26.
Question as to application of Decision 2 to monthly guarantees on certain
short run.
Case withdrawn, parties at interest agreeing on settlement. OW
RR&NCO-E&F. Decision No. 98.
3. Mileage.
Request for rule guaranteeing men in assigned service certain mileage
per day for each day of assignment. Parties at interest agreed upon settlement
and withdrew case from consideration by Labor Board. OWRR&N-E&F
Decision No. 311.
HEADQUARTERS-PAY WHILE AWAY FROM ESTABLISHED.
During certain seasons of year when ore trains are being handled, it
becomes necessary to increase dispatching force at certain point, and as such
work requires experienced dispatchers, the claimant, being the junior quali-
fied dispatcher on the division, was transferred from his regular point to
point in question for the period during which the ore shipments were being
handled, and is contending that under the rule he should be allowed the
necessary actual expenses incurred by him while away from his established
headquarters. Decision-Board construes rule involved as requiring reim-
bursement for actual expenses incurred when required to leave established
headquarters to relieve dispatchers at other points. Evidence in this case in-
dicates dispatcher in question was not required to leave his established head-
105
quarters for purpose of relieving a dispatcher at another point, and claim
is, therefore, denied. C&NW-ATDA. Decision No. 273.
HELD AWAY FROM HOME TERMINAL.
overs.")
(See also "Terminal Lay-
Question as to right of road to change home terminal for pool crews for
purpose of applying Article 8, Sup. 25-Held Away From Home Terminal
Rule. Sustained. N&W_C&T. Decision No. 59.
HELD OUT OF SERVICE.
Claim for time held out of service, without investigation, as per rule, and
no reasons given. Sustained. D&SD-EFC&T. Decision No. 85..
HELPER SERVICE.
Claim of crew assigned to helper service for continuous time from time
reporting for duty until final release, plus mileage of runs; mileage only
being allowed by company. Case withdrawn, parties at interest agreeing on
settlement. OWRR&NCo-E&F. Decision No. 103.
Question as to proper rate of pay for crews assigned to helper service.
Board decides rate of pay for helper service shall be same as that for freight
service. LA&SL-E&F. Decision No. 104.
HELPERS.
1. Electrical Worker
2. Machinist
1. Electrical Worker.
Question as to whether helpers who are regularly assigned to assist em-
ployees who are performing work in the maintenance of signals as provided
for in Rules 140 and 141 of Federated Shop Crafts' Agreement shall be in-
creased under Section 3, Art. IV, or under Art. IX of Decision 2, it being
agreed by both parties to the dispute that the mechanics are electrical workers
within the meaning of Rules 140 and 141 of the National Shop Agreement.
Decision-Helpers in question are included in the classes of helpers specified
in Section 3, Art. IV, and shall receive the increase of 13c per hour provided
therein. C&EI-REDeptAFofL. Decision No. 129.
2. Machinist.
Question whether employees engaged exclusively in filling lubricators are
entitled to classification and rating of machinist helpers; also whether carrier
was warranted in making reductions from an employee's earnings as result of
conflicting decisions rendered by Board of Adjustment. Decision (a) Em-
ployees if engaged exclusively in filling lubricators are not entitled to classi-
fication and rating of machinist helpers unless and until such classification
and rating is result of agreement between carrier and duly authorized repre-
sentatives of said employees-(b) Carrier has advised Labor Board that no
deductions will be made, which closes this portion of dispute. C&S-MofW.
Decision No. 144.
HIGHER-RATED POSITIONS. Pay when assigned to See "Preser-
vation of Rates," and "Assignments (3)."
HOLIDAY SERVICE. See "Sunday and Holiday Service."
HOME TERMINAL. Changing. See "Terminals-Changing."
HOSTLERS AND HOSTLER HELPERS.
Increases granted by Labor Board to-See "Sec. 4, Art. VI, Decision 2."
Decreases, effective July 1, 1921, covering-See Sec. 4, Art. VI. Decision
No. 147.
Application of Decision 2 to. See "Decision 2-Application of."
Classification of Rates of Pay and Service. See "Classification of Posi-
tions, Service and Rates.'
Request for rules governing hostler service.
Parties at interest agreed
106
upon settlement and withdrew case from Board. OWRR&NCo-E&F. De-
cision No. 316.
Claim of roundhouse laborers at a certain point for rate of inside hostler
from March 1, 1920, on the ground that they are required, as a part of
their duties, to handle engines in and out of the roundhouse. Evidence filed
by carrier shows that less than 25 per cent of the laborer's time is con-
sumed in moving locomotives, the balance of their time being consumed
in roundhouse laborer's work. Decision-Claim denied. MV-MofW. De-
cision No. 891.
HOURLY RATES. Method of computing.
Question whether increases under Decision 2, for employees coming under
Rule 15 of National Shop Agreement should be based on 3,156 hours per year,
or 204 hours per month. Decision-Increases to be based on 3,156 hours per
year. AT&SF-SC. Int. 3 to Decision No. 2.
Question as to how increases provided in Sec. 7, Art. III of Decision 2 shall
be applied to employees who are assigned to work the calendar days of the
month, are paid a monthly rate and receive no additional compensation for
service performed on Sundays and holidays. Decision-Increase rate by $17.34
(204x82c). N&W-MofW. Int. 1 to Decision No. 2.
Question as to proper method of computing hourly and overtime rates for
monthly rated employees in MofW Department. Decision-Divide yearly
salary (12 times the monthly rate) by 8 times the number of working days
during calendar year on which days overtime is not allowed for work per-
formed as part of employees' regular assignment. Decision 2 did not change
agreements or practices relative to payment of overtime to monthly rated em-
ployees. L&N-Mof W. Decision No. 130.
Question as to number of days constituting a basic year for employees
covered by National Maintenance of Way Agreement-employees contending
that decision of Board of Adjustment No. 3 placed all monthly-rated
employees under Section (e) of the National Agreement, and Int. 1 to De-
cision 2 of Labor Board sustains the claim, as the increase for all monthly-
rated employees was figured on basis of 306 days per year; therefore, the
hourly rate for all monthly-rated employees covered by national agreement
should be computed by multiplying 306 by 8 and dividing the annual salary
by the total hours. Decision-Employees' contention denied. C&NW-MofW.
Decision No. 232.
HOURS OF SERVICE.
Where working hours of chauffeurs and helpers in the vehicle depart-
ment of American Ry. Express Co. were from 7 a. m. to 4 p. m. on Mondays,
and from 8 a. m. to 5 p. m. on other days of week, and where, after due
notice, starting time of these employees was changed to 8 a. m. on Mondays
and 9 a. m. on other days of week, request is made that working hours pre-
viously in effect be reestablished. Decision-Request denied-change in start-
ing time was made in accordance with rules governing employees in this branch.
of service. EDC&C—ARECo. Decision No. 112.
Dispute in regard to increase in basic day to nine hours making a total of
50 hours per week-no facts given. Decision-Board understands that
subsequent to filing this dispute an agreement has been negotiated and con-
summated and that further negotiations will be conducted with a view to
disposing of this dispute. In view of this fact the case is considered closed
without prejudice to the right of either party in making further submission
in connection therewith if it so desires. PullmanCo-ShCrf. Decision No.
439.
Question as to (1) whether position of stable foreman at certain point
comes within the scope of the national agreement governing express em-
ployees, and (2) proper compensation under the agreement for two employees
engaged as hostlers at the same point. Employees contend that position of
stable foreman comes within the scope of the agreement and should be
given a regular assignment as required by the rules and that the assigned
working hours (7 a. m. to 12 noon and 4 p. m. to 7 p. m.) of the two
107
hostlers are in conflict with Rule 45 of the agreement, which provides for 8
hours work within a spread of 9 hours. Decision-Evidence before the
Board shows that the stable foreman in question is in full charge of the
stable and has the authority to employ and dismiss employees under his juris-
diction. In the case of the hostlers, it appears that when Supplement 19
to G. O. 27, effective May 1, 1919, was issued they were placed on a straight
8-hour basis, but after working on this basis for some little time they volun-
tarily requested the stable foreman to restore their previous hours of serv-
ice, which were 8 hours within a spread of 12, in order that they might
have the benefit of a noon time siesta to conform with the custom of certain
classes of laborers in the territory in which they were employed, and an agree-
ment was drawn up and signed by them under the terms of which they have
specifically expressed a preference for the hours of service which were
in effect at the time this controversy arose. Request of employees is, there-
fore, denied. ARE-Clks. Decision No. 700.
Question as to whether it is permissible to assign coal chute foreman
to work a less number of hours or days than laborers supervised. During
a certain period the laborers in this foreman's crew were required to work
10 hours per day and also on Sundays and holidays, while the foreman was
assigned to work only 9 hours with no Sunday or holiday work, and em-
ployees contend that Section (a), Article XI of Supplement 8 to G. O. 27,
has not been complied with. Decision-Board cannot find that carrier has
violated any rule or agreement in handling this matter and accordingly sustains
the carrier's position. C&NW-MofW. Decision No. 713.
Dispute with reference to changing hours of service in certain general
offices of the carrier. In various offices, it was the practice to work clerical
employees seven hours and fifteen minutes daily, except Saturday, on which
day the offices are closed between 12 noon and 1 p. m. In December, 1920,
the working hours were increased to eight per day, five days per week, but no
change made in the practice of allowing the half holiday on Saturday. Em-
ployees contend that this change was in violation of Rule 57 of the clerks'
national agreement. Decision-Claim of employees denied. NYC-Clks. De-
cision No. 731. LV-Clks. Decision No. 734.
HOURS OF SERVICE LAWS. See "Tie-Ups on Road."
HUMP RIDERS.
Where no fixed number of men known as "hump riders" are assigned to
crew and it has been practice to call such men during regular shift as needed,
using all riders eight hours each so that in course of day the men called during
a shift will lap over and finish their day with the regular crew of the next
shift and for which they are paid a day of eight hours for such service;
claim is made that under such conditions a minimum day at pro rata rates for
service performed on first shift and minimum day at time and one-half for
service performed on second shift account working under two different yard
conductors even though only eight hours' continuous service was performed.
Claim denied; payment made is just and reasonable. N&W-Tr. Decision
No. 69.
INABILITY OF CARRIER TO PAY.
Request of carrier for authority to revise rules and working conditions
and rates of pay for train and engine service employees, maintenance of
equipment employees, station agents, assistant station agents and telegraph
operators. Decision-Board is sympathetic with principle that "inability of
the carrier to pay" is not controlling factor in fixing wages, but recognizes
that it is entitled to secondary consideration with certain type of carrier
dependent almost entirely on local business or whose principal function
in the final analysis is development and upbuilding of a new or comparatively
new country. It has given careful consideration to the seven points laid
down in the Transportation Act, to other relevant circumstances as well
as the peculiar conditions surrounding the operation of this carrier; and
decides that effective November 1, 1921, rates of pay specified in this decision
108
are authorized. Rules and working conditions will be reserved for later
hearing as organizations of train and engine service and station telegraph
service announced they were not prepared to proceed with this question.
(Decision dissented from by A. O. Wharton, of the Board, on the grounds
of the unjust and unreasonable treatment accorded shop employees under
the decision and the indefensibly low rates, established for laborers, reciting
the various reasons therefor. W. L. McMenimen, of the Board, also states
he is not in accord with majority decision and cannot concur in dissenting
opinion.) NOGN—EFCT—Tel—ShCfts. Decision No. 290.
INCORPORATING RATES AND RULES INTO SCHEDULES.
See "Schedules-Incorporating rates and rules into."
INCREASES.
(For basis for applying increases under Decision 2-See "Decision 2—
Application of."
To Railroad Employees-See "Decision 2."
To Express Company Employees-See "Decision 3."
To Lighter Captains in Port of N. Y.-See "Decision 4."
INCREASES-REQUEST FOR.
Request of marine employees on railroads operating floating equipment
in Port of San Francisco for increases in wages and changes in rules and
working conditions. Denied. NWP-SP—AT&SF—WP—MM&PofA~
MEBA-FBUofCal. Decision No. 20.
Request of Dining and Sleeping Car Employees for increase in wages and
change in working conditions. Denied. BofD&SCEU-GN. Decision No. 54.
Request of Order of Sleeping Car Conductors for increases in wages
and changes in working conditions. Denied. Present rates and working con-
ditions just and reasonable. OSCC-Pullman Co. Decision No. 107.
Request of 15 organizations of employees of 67 so-called "Short Line"
Railroads for application to them of the agreements, orders, etc., of U. S.
Railroad Administration and for substantially the same scale of wages as
now apply to employees of the standard railroads. Case dismissed-reasons
stated in decision. See decision for railroads and employees affected. De-
cision No. 108.
Request for increase in rate of pay of baggage and mail porters at Union
Station, St. Louis, Mo., to conform with rate paid at certain other larger
terminals, contention being that conditions of employment are the same and same
rate of pay should prevail. Request denied. TRRAssnof St Louis- -Clerks.
Decision No. 123.
Request for increased rates of pay for parcel porters generally known
as "red caps" and foremen thereof, engaged in handling parcels and personal
baggage of passengers in and around Union Station, Washington, D. C. Re-
quest denied. WashTermCo-TBMH&SE. Decision No. 176.
Request for adjustment of inequalities in rates of pay of certain.positions
in the telephone, telegraph and station service, which in effect involves an in-
crease in pay for the positions referred to. Decision-Request denied. IU-
Telgrs. Decision No. 193. Wabash-Telgrs. Decision No. 194.
Question as to effective date of increases granted by Fort Smith &
Western Ry.-road contending that it was entitled to thirty days' notice in
accordance with its agreement, before applying the increase. Decision-Road
sustained, and claim of employees for back pay to May 1st denied. FS&W-
ShCfts. Decision No. 181.
Request for increase in rates of pay of express messengers assigned to
certain service on trains of one road to equalize with rates of messengers on
trains of another road between the same points; employees contending that
work performed and hazards and responsibilities on trains of both roads are
identical, and that the disparity constitutes an inequality which should be ad-
justed. Decision-Request denied. ARECo-Clks. Decision No. 287.
Request for equalization of rates of pay of two positions in the settlement
department at certain point, employees contending that the work of the two
109
positions is identical and that the rates of same should be equalized, in accord-
ance with section (b) Article I of Supplement 19 to General Order 27. Car-
rier contends that Supplement 19 to General Order 27 does not provide for
equalization of rates of employees doing same class of work but only employees
doing the same work; furthermore that the higher rate is paid to an employee
who was formerly cashier and whose position was abolished in consolidation of
the express companies at the point in question. Therefore, the payment of the
higher rate is for a special or extraordinary reason within the meaning and
intent of section (b), Article I of Supplement 19. Decision-Evidence before
the Board shows that the two employees involved were not performing the
same work at the same agency within the meaning and intent of section (b),
Article I of Supplement 19, and request of the employees is, therefore, denied.
ARECO-Clks. Decision No. 369.
Request for equalization of rate of pay of position of assistant paymasters
with rate of position of bookkeeper at same point, employees contending that
the duties performed by these two employees are practically the same and that
under provisions of Article I of Section (e) of Supplement 19 to G. O. 27,
the rates of pay should be the same, and request equalization in accordance with
section (b) of Supplement 19. Decision-Board construes section (b) Article
I Supplement 19 to provide for equalization of rates for the same work at
the same agency. Evidence in this case indicates that the work of the two po-
sitions is not the same work within the meaning and intent of section referred
to and denies request of employees. ARECo-Clerks. Decision No. 371.
Request for increase in rate of pay of operator leverman at certain point,
employee claiming that work has been increased due to abolishment of tele-
graph office at south end of yard and the transfer of the work handled at this
office to the employee involved, and also account of additional levers having
been installed. Decision-Request denied. NC&StLRy-Tel. Decision No.
381.
Request for increase in rate of pay of milk handlers on certain trains, con-
tention being that the work of these employees is similar to that performed by
baggagemen, and that in the year 1915 the rates of pay of these positions were
the same as the baggagemen's rates and that they should now receive the same
rate as now paid baggagemen. Carrier contends that there is no analogy be-
tween the positions of milk handler and baggageman, and no relation between
the rates of pay of the two positions; that these employees were not specifically
covered by Decision 2 of the Labor Board but that the carrier voluntarily ap-
plied an increase of $30.00 per month to said positions. Decision-Request of
employees denied. MSt&SSMRy-Clks. Decisions Nos. 383 and 385.
Request for equalization in rates of pay of messengers on trains operated
between certain points to conform with rates paid messengers on trains be-
tween certain other points. Decision-Case withdrawn by employees and file
closed. ARECo-Clks. Decision No. 624.
Request for increases in rates of pay of express messengers and train agents
on certain trains operated by one carrier to equalize with rates of pay of
express messengers and train agents on other trains operated by the same or
another carrier between the same points. Carrier admits that the disparity
exists but contends that such differentials have always existed and are
warranted by differences in working conditions and relative importance of
the runs. It is agreed by both parties to the dispute that all of the orders and
decisions of the Labor Board have been properly applied. Decision-Request
of employees is denied. ARE-Clks. Decisions Nos. 638, 653, 654, 655, 656,
and 659.
Request of certain inspectors, whose duties consist of collecting pre-
pays and expense for period of about 7 hours per day and inspecting bad
order shipments about one hour per day, for increase in compensation to
equalize the rate of their positions with rate paid employees classified as
street inspectors, whose duties consist of direct supervision over all vehicles
operated in designated territory, keeping in touch with shippers, and arranging
for wagon service. Carrier contends that there is no similarity between
the two classes of inspectors referred to, and that the employees involved
are not performing the same work at the same agency as contemplated by
110
Section (b), Article I of Supplement 19 to G. O. 27. Decision-Claim
of employees is denied. ARE-Clks. Decision No. 666.
Request for increase in rate of pay of receiving clerk at the depot office
at certain point to equalize with rates paid counter clerks in the city office
at the same point. Carrier contends that the duties of the position referred
to are not identical and that the employees are not performing the same work
at the same agency within the intent of Section (b), Article I, Supplement
19 to G. O. 27. Decision-Position of carrier sustained. ARE-Clks. De-
cision No. 671.
Request for increase in wages of certain part time employees at certain
point to equalize with wages paid regular employees at the same point. At
the point in question there are employed from day to day a number of men
who work from 5 to 7 hours per day. These employees are termed "short
hour men" and are engaged in the handling of express shipments and per-
formance of certain clerical work incident thereto. Employees contend that
these men should be paid the same rates of pay as are paid to regular em-
ployees of the carrier, while carrier takes the position that these men are
regularly employed in outside employment and are not subject to the pro-
visions of Supplement 19, the National Agreement, the decisions of the
Labor Board and the Transportation Act. Decision-Claim of employees
denied. ARE-Clks. Decision No. 679.
Request for increase in rate of pay of depot foremen in the railroad
depot of one carrier at certain point to equalize with rate of pay of express
foreman in the depot of another carrier at the same point. Decision-Re-
quest denied. ARE-Clks. Decision No. 698.
Dispute with reference to wages and rules covering working conditions
of dining-car stewards. Case withdrawn by interested parties and file closed.
SP-BroDinCarCon. Decisions Nos. 827 and 828.
Request for increase in rates of pay of three positions at a certain point
On
to equalize with rates of pay of certain positions at another point.
April 16, 1920, the salaries of the employees at the point in question were
increased to amounts equivalent to the salaries of employees performing
the same class of work at the other point, with the exception of the positions.
of cashier, pay-roll clerk, and collector, which were not increased and the
employees are contending that in denying the three employees referred to
herein an increase of salary, the carrier has established an unjust inequality
which should be eliminated by increasing the rates of pay of these em-
ployees from the date the other employees were increased. Decision-Claim
of the employees denied. ARE-Clks. Decision No. 856.
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR.
Where railroad agent is allowed a flat sum by Express Company to handle
its transfer business and pay salary of such employees as he deems necessary,
and which employees are engaged by, report to and paid directly by the agent,
claim is made by clerks' organization that a clerk so employed is in fact an
employee of the Express Company, and that such position comes within the scope
of the Clerks' National Agreement, and Decision 3 of the Labor Board.
Decision-Claim denied. ARECo-Clerks. Decision No. 184.
INEQUALITIES IN RATES OF PAY. Adjustment of.
Request for adjustment of inequalities in rates of pay of certain positions
in the telephone, telegraph and station service, which in effect involves an in-
crease in pay for the positions referred to. Decision-Request denied. IU—
Telgrs. Decision No. 193. Wabash-Telgrs. Decision No. 194.
Request for increase in rates of pay of express messengers assigned to
certain service on trains of one road to equalize with rates of messengers
on trains of another road between the same points; employees contending
that work performed and hazards and responsibilities on trains of both roads
are identical, and that the disparity constitutes an inequality which should be
adjusted. Decision-Request denied. ARECO-Clks. Decision No. 287.
Request for equalization of rates of pay of two positions in the settle-
ment department at certain point, employees contending that the work of the
111
two positions is identical and that the rates of same should be equalized, in
accordance with Section (b), Article I of Supplement 19 to General Order
27. Carrier contends that Supplement 19 to General Order 27 does not pro-
vide for equalization of rates of employees doing same class of work, but
only employees doing the same work; furthermore, that the higher rate is
paid to an employee who was formerly cashier and whose position was
abolished in consolidation of the express companies at the point in question.
Therefore, the payment of the higher rate is for a special or extraordinary
reason within the meaning and intent of Section (b), Article I of Supple-
ment 19. Decision-Evidence before the Board shows that the two employees
involved were not performing the same work at the same agency within
the meaning and intent of Section (b), Article I of Supplement 19, and re-
quest of the employees is, therefore, denied. ARECo-Ĉlks. Decision No.
369.
Request for equalization of rate of pay of position of assistant paymasters
with rate of position of bookkeeper at same point, employees contending
that the duties performed by these two employees are practically the same
and that under provisions of Article I of Section (e) of Supplement 19
to G. O. 27, the rates of pay should be the same, and request equalization in
accordance with Section (b) of Supplement 19. Decision-Board construes
Section (b), Article I, Supplement 19, to provide for equalization of rates
for the same work at the same agency. Evidence in this case indicates that
the work of the two positions is not the same work within the meaning and
intent of section referred to and denies request of employees. ARECo-Clks.
Decision No. 371.
Request of carriers for elimination of inequalities of rates of pay of
certain clerical and station employees paid on a daily basis. During Federal
control the carriers under a decision issued by the Railway Board of Ad-
justment No. 3 were required to apply Rule 66 of the clerks' national
agreement to employees paid on a daily and hourly basis. This resulted
in clerical and station employees working 7 days a week, who formerly
received the same daily compensation as employees working 6 days a week,
receiving a higher daily rate of pay. Carrier claims that Rule 66 refers solely
to the method of computing the daily rate of employees paid on a monthly
or weekly basis, and makes no reference to employees paid on a daily or
hourly basis, and further contends that the application of this rule to em-
ployees paid on a daily or hourly basis has resulted in unjustifiable inequalities
in the daily rates of pay of positions which had previously paid the same
rate per day. Decision-It is the opinion of the Board that Rule 66 of the
clerks' national agreement prescribes the manner of determining the daily
rate for employees paid on a monthly or weekly basis. It makes no refer-
ence to employees paid on a daily basis and the application of the formula
prescribed therein for converting monthly and weekly rates to a daily basis
to employees who are already paid on a daily basis had the effect of estab-
lishing inequalities in the rates of pay of employees performing the same
work in the same office who had previously received the same rate per day
regardless of whether they worked 6 or 7 days a week. When the Board
extended the effective period of the clerks' national agreement it adopted
for a temporary purpose Rule 66, and in a sense made it a rule of the Board.
Therefore, the Board has a right to consider this rule and interpret its mean-
ing and is not bound by the construction placed thereon by any other authority
existing prior to the passage of the Transportation Act. The Board, there-
fore, decides that effective December 16, 1921, the differential now existing
between the daily rate paid to employees working on a 6 and 7 day per
week basis shall be abolished by reducing the daily rate of the 7 day per
week employees to the daily rate paid 6 day per week employees. B&M,MC,
NYNH&H,CofNE,PTer-Clks. Decision No. 426.
Claim that basis of payment for track watchmen on one division should
be changed from a monthly to an hourly basis to conform to basis of payment
applying to certain track walkers on another division of the same railroad
whose services are similar. Carrier takes the position that Section (a-12),
Article V of the National Agreement, provides a monthly rate for employees
112
engaged in such service. Decision-Based upon evidence submitted and
Board's interpretation of Section (a-12), Article V of the National Agreement,
position of carrier is sustained. CenRRofNJ-MofW. Decision No. 589.
Request for increase in rates of pay of train directors and levermen to
restore differentials previously existing between those positions and positions
of dispatchers, and signal maintainers, respectively. Decision-Evidence be-
fore the Board shows that all of the orders of the Railroad Administration
and Labor Board affecting classes of employees involved have been properly
applied and request of employees is, therefore, denied. TermRRAssnof StL-
Telegrs. Decision No. 611.
Request for equalization of wages of express messengers on trains operated
between certain points. Case withdrawn by employees and file closed. Amer.
RyExpCo-Clks. Decisions Nos. 613 and 616.
Request for equalization in rates of pay of messengers on trains operated
between certain points to conform with rates paid messengers on trains be-
tween certain other points. Decision-Case withdrawn by employees and file
closed. ARECo-Clks. Decision No. 624.
Request for increases in rates of pay of express messengers and train agents
on certain trains operated by one carrier to equalize with rates of pay of express
messengers and train agents on other trains operated by the same or another
carrier between the same points. Carrier admits that the disparity exists but
contends that such differentials have always existed and are warranted by
differences in working conditions and relative importance of the runs. It is
agreed by both parties to the dispute that all of the orders and decisions of the
Labor Board have been properly applied. Decision-Request of employees is
denied. ARE-Clks. Decisions Nos. 638, 653, 654, 655, 656, and 659.
Request of certain inspectors, whose duties consist of collecting prepays
and expense for period of about 7 hours per day and inspecting bad order
shipments about one hour per day, for increase in compensation to equalize
the rate of their positions with rate paid employees classified as street in-
spectors, whose duties consist of direct supervision over all vehicles operated
in designated territory, keeping in touch with shippers, and arranging for wagon
service. Carrier contends that there is no similarity between the two classes
of inspectors referred to, and that the employees involved are not performing
the same work at the same agency as contemplated by Section (b), Article I of
Supplement 19 to G. O. 27. Decision-Claim of employees is denied. ARE-
Clks. Decision No. 666.
Request for increase in rate of pay of receiving clerk at the depot office at
certain point to equalize with rates paid counter clerks in the city office at the
same point. Carrier contends that the duties of the position referred to are
not identical and that the employees are not performing the same work at the
same agency within the intent of Section (b), Article I, Supplement 19 to G.
O. 27. Decision-Position of carrier sustained. ARE-Clks. Decision No.
671.
Request for increase in wages of certain part time employees at certain
point to equalize with wages paid regular employees at the same point. At
the point in question there are employed from day to day a number of men
who work from 5 to 7 hours per day. These employees are termed "short
hour men" and are engaged in the handling of express shipments and per-
formance of certain clerical work incident thereto. Employees contend that
these men should be paid the same rates of pay as are paid to regular employees
of the carrier, while carrier takes the position that these men are regularly
employed in outside employment and are not subject to the provisions of
Supplement 19, the national agreement, the decisions of the Labor Board and
the Transportation Act. Decision-Claim of employees denied. ARE—Clks.
Decision No. 679.
Request for increase in rate of pay of depot foreman in the railroad depot
of one carrier at certain point to equalize with rate of pay of express foreman
in the depot of another carrier at the same point. Decision-Request denied.
ARE-Clks. Decision No. 698.
Claim that B&B foremen, water service foremen, and assistant B&B fore-
men, on a certain division, should receive the same monthly rate of pay as
113
foremen and assistant foremen in the B&B and water service departments
of all other divisions of the carrier's system. During Federal control division
in question was under a different Regional Director from the balance of the
system and these men were paid a lower rate of pay. On March 18, 1920, after
the termination of Federal control certain increases were authorized for these
foremen, but when Labor Board's Decision No. 2 was rendered, in accordance
therewith, the increases were added to the rates which were in effect 12:01 a.
m., March 1, 1920, and the carrier takes position that the rates now paid are
correct under the orders of the Railroad Administration and subsequent rulings
of the Labor Board. Decision-Board decides that provisions of Decision No.
2 have been complied with in applying increases in the manner outlined. How-
ever, principle 7, paragraph (d), section 307 of Title 3 of the Transportation
Act states that "inequalities of increases in wages or of treatment, the re-
sult of previous wage orders or adjustments" shall be taken into consideration
and this decision is not to be construed to mean otherwise, or that the duly
authorized representatives of the carrier and employees may not negotiate to a
conclusion rates of pay for the positions in question. SP-MofW. Decision
No. 798.
Request for equalization of wages of clerks at certain point. Case with-
drawn by employees and file closed. ARE-Clks. Decision No. 843.
Request for increase in rates of pay of three positions at a certain point
to equalize with rates of pay of certain positions at another point.
On April 16, 1920, the salaries of the employees at the point in question
were increased to amounts equivalent to the salaries of employees performing
the same class of work at the other point, with the exception of the positions
of cashier, pay-roil clerk, and collector, which were not increased, and the em-
ployees are contending that in denying the three employees referred to herein
an increase of salary, the carrier has established an unjust inequality which
should be eliminated by increasing the rates of pay of these employees from
the date the other employees were increased. Decision-Claim of the employees
denied. ARE-Clks. Decision No. 856.
Question as to application of Decision No. 3 to certain clerical positions.
Employees state that there was not enough difference between the rates of
pay of the position in question and other positions in the department which
constituted an unjust inequality, making it necessary for the carrier to increase
such position in order to secure and retain the services of a competent employee,
which increase they state "was granted February 25, 1920," effective March
1, 1920, and they are contending, therefore, that the increase under Decision
No. 3 should have been added to the increased rate referred to. Carrier con-
tends that the increase was not made for the purpose of adjusting an inequality
but for the purpose of securing and retaining the service of a competent
employee and that such increase, therefore, should be absorbed in the applica-
tion of Decision No. 3. Decision-It appears that the increased rate referred
to was not granted for the purpose of adjusting an inequality within the
meaning and intent of Section 3, but the evidence is not clear as to whether
or not the increase was granted prior to 12:01 a. m., March 1, 1920, therefore
the Board remands this dispute to the employees and the carrier to determine
whether or not the increase was granted prior to March 1, 1920. If it was
granted prior to 12:01 a. m. March 1, 1920, the increase under Decision No. 3
shall be added to the rate which includes the voluntary increase of the carrier;
but if the increase was not granted before 12:01 a. m. March 1, 1920, the in-
crease under Decision No. 3 shall be added to the rate previously in effect.
ARE-Clks. Decision No. 904.
INITIAL TERMINAL DELAY. See "Terminal Delay."
INITIAL TERMINAL SWITCHNG. See "Switching By Road Crews."
INSPECTION OF ENGINES.
Request for additional compensation under rule providing for payment of
time after engine is placed on designated track at terminals to allow for in-
spection of engine and making of reports. Decision-No change to be made
at this time. NYC-EF. Decision No. 11.
114
Question as to whether carrier is privileged under the rules of agreements
in effect, to rearrange short turnaround passenger runs for purpose of avoiding
the payment of excess mileage or overtime if by doing so they establish inter-
divisional runs. Decision-Parties at interest agreed upon a settlement and
withdrew case from consideration by Board. C&EI-CTE&F-Decision No.
494.
INTERMITTENT SERVICE.
Question as to whether Rule 49 of the Clerks' National Agreement, pro-
viding for payment on monthly basis to cover all service rendered where serv-
ice is intermittent, applies to positions such as baggage and mail handlers,
gatemen, train and engine crew callers, janitors, warehousemen, station bag-
gagemen and porters; employees contending that Rule 49 does not apply and that
the employees filling these positions should be paid on a daily basis. Deci-
sion-Evidence before Board shows service performed by employees in question
does not require continuous application, and these employees, therefore, are
being properly paid on basis established by Rule 49. MP-Clks. Decisions
Nos. 156, 157, 158, 159, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167 and 172. JTCo-
Clerks. Decision No. 160. NP-Clerks. Decision Nos. 168 and 169. StL
SF-Clerks. Decision No. 170. HUDCo-Clerks. Decision No. 171.
Question as to whether rule 49 of the clerks' national agreement is applicable
to position of warehouse foreman at certain point, employees claiming that
this rule does not apply to the position in question. Decision-Board does not
consider the positions of warehouse foremen to be analogous to those defined
as "other office and station employees" in paragraph 2, rule 1 of Article I of
the clerks' national agreement. Therefore, rule 49 of this agreement is not
applicable to this position, and position of employees is sustained. StLSW-
Clks. Decision No. 479.
Dispute concerning rate of pay and compensation for messengers employed
in local freight office at certain point. Decision-As carrier and employees
have not made proper effort to determine applicability of rule 49 of clerks'
national agreement to this case Board decides that parties to this dispute shall
conduct an investigation of the work performed in an effort to determine
whether or not the employees are properly subject to rule 49 and in event that
an agreement cannot be reached, refer the matter to this Board for decision,
giving full information as to the extent to which service requires continuous
application. D&RG-Clks. Decision No. 559.
Question as to application of rule 49 of the clerks' national agreement to
"other office and station employees" enumerated in paragraph 2, rule 1 of
said agreement. Prior to effective date of clerks' national agreement "all
other office and station employees" on the carrier involved were paid monthly
rates which were converted into daily rates under rule 66 of the agreement, on
which basis the payment was continued in effect until carrier received decisions
Nos. 156 to 172, inclusive, of the Labor Board when, effective July 1, 1921, the
monthly basis of compensation as provided in rule 49 of the agreement, was
restored. Decision-It is apparent from the evidence before the Board in this
dispute that there are stations in which the employees subject to the provisions
of this rule perform service that is intermittent or does not require continuous
application and to whom rule 49 manifestly applies, and it is also equally mani-
fest that there are stations at which the employees subject to the provisions of
this rule perform service which is not intermittent and to whom rule 49 does
not apply. It is, therefore, ordered that this dispute shall be remanded to the
employees and the carrier and that their representatives shall confer and
eliminate from the dispute the employees at those stations where it is plainly
manifest that rule 49 does or does not apply. Where an agreement cannot be
reached the employees and the carrier shall jointly submit for the decision of the
Board their contention with respect to each specific position in dispute. In
the meantime it is ordered that at stations where the carrier is willing to
concede in the conference with the employees that rule 49 does not apply, they
shall restore such employees to the daily basis of pay and reimburse them for the
monetary loss sustained since July 1, 1921. It shall also be understood that
where the Board shall decide on basis of evidence to be submitted that certain
115
positions were improperly placed under rule 49 and readjustment is ordered,
such readjustment shall be retroactive to July 1, 1921. NYC-Clks. Decision
No. 632. NYC—RRStationEmployees. Decision No. 633.
Question as to whether Rule 49 of the clerks' national agreement is appli-
cable to positions of foreman and assistant foreman in the baggage and mail
departments, train directors, train callers or announcers, gatemen, information
bureau clerks, telephone switchboard operators, railroad mail sorters, and
elevator operators at the Union Depot at certain point. Decision-Board
decides that service performed by the employees classified as train directors,
gatemen, elevator operators, train announcers and railroad mail sorters, does
not require continuous application, and they are, therefore, properly paid in
accordance with Rule 49. The information bureau clerks, telephone informa-
tion clerks and foremen should be paid a daily rate to be established as provided
in Rule 66 of the agreement. The employees classified as assistant foremen,
and paid a monthly rate, are not assistant foremen in fact, but are employees
who have heretofore been paid an hourly rate of 2c above the hourly rate of
truckers, and they should be restored to this basis of pay. This decision
based on the particular facts of this case. StPUnion DepotCo—Clks.
cision No. 824.
De-
Dispute regarding proper application of Rule 49 of the Clerks National
Agreement to certain employees engaged in handling baggage and mail. De-
cision-At the hearing conducted by the Board, the employees modified their
request and asked that an hourly rate of pay be established for the positions in
question. It appears that the case has not been handled in conference between
the employees and the carrier on the same basis as it was presented to the
Board, and furthermore, that the employees and the carrier have not made a
check of the duties of the positions involved to determine the extent to which
the service performed requires continuous application or is of an intermittent
character and the dispute is, therefore, remanded to the employees and the
carrier for conference upon the request of the employees presented at the hear-
ing, and for a joint check to determine the extent to which the service per-
formed requires continuous application or is intermittent in character. SJUD-
Clks. Decision No. 929.
INTERURBAN ELECTRIC RAILWAYS. See "Electric Railways."
ISOLATED POINT-DEFINITION OF.
Question as to what constitutes "isolated point" as applied to engine
watchmen referred to in Section (a-12), Article V of the National Main-
tenance of Way Agreement. Decision-Board decides that fair definition of
the language "engine watchmen at isolated point" as incorporated in Section
(a-12), Article V of the agreement, would be-engine watchman at isolated
points are those located at other than division terminals, where there is no
supervision and where maintenance work is not performed on locomotives,
except engine watchmen at such points whose duties, connected with taking
care of engines, such as knocking and building fires, and service of like
character, consume more than 50 per cent of their time on duty, in which latter
case they should be excluded from the provisions of section and article
referred to. C&NW-MofW. Decision No. 524.
Claim of engine watchman for adjustment in rate of pay in accordance with
Section 8, Article III of Decision No. 2. Employees claim that the point in
question is not an isolated point as referred to in Section (a-12), Article V of
the National Maintenance of Way Agreement, and further that if such point is
an isolated point, then the monthly rate should have been determined by ap-
plying the provisions of Section (a-12) to the hourly rate established in ac-
cordance with Section 8, Article III of Decision No. 2. Decision-It is de-
cided that Decision No. 524 of the Labor Board shall be followed in de-
termining whether or not the point in question shall be considered an "iso-
lated point." If it is proper to consider such point an isolated point, the
Board decides that the carrier was justified in establishing a monthly rate
for the position in question. The monthly rate, however, should have been
predicated upon the rate of pay and assignment in effect at the time such
116
change was made. If Section (a-12), Article V of the agreement, does
not apply, the hourly rate shall be reestablished on the basis of what the
hourly rate should have been had the monthly rate not been established, mak-
ing necessary allowance for all subsequent adjustments that have been made
by decision of the Board.. Adjustment in compensation not to be made re-
troactive beyond July 1, 1921. C&NW-MofW. Decision No. 806.
Claim of certain engine watchmen for hourly basis of payment and back
pay from March 1, 1921. On March 1, 1920, these employees were compen-
sated at an hourly rate, which hourly rate was increased ten cents per hour
in accordance with Section 8, Article III, of Decision No. 2. Effective
March 1, 1921, rates of pay of these employees were established at a monthly
rate in accordance with Section A-12, Article V, of the National Maintenance.
of Way Agreement, on the basis of the hourly rate in effèct March 1, 1920.
plus increase of $20.40 per month as provided in Decision No. 2. Employees
contend that the term "Isolated point" should not apply to the point in question,
and that these employees should be continued on an hourly basis. Decision—
The Board in its Decision No. 524 gave its interpretation of Section (a-12)
Article V of the National Maintenance of Way Agreement, which interpre-
tation shall govern in determining whether or not the position in question should
be rated on a monthly basis. If under such interpretation the position should
be rated on an hourly basis, proper adjustment shall be made for the period
subsequent to March 1, 1921, account having been paid on a monthly rated
basis. C&NW-MofW. Decision No. 897.
JANITORS.
Claim that certain employees designated as janitors and janitresses should
be increased ten cents per hour under Sec. 5, Art. II, Decision 2. Decision-
Employees referred to are not janitors and therefore not entitled to increase
provided in Sec. 5, Art. II. DL&W-Clerks. Decision No. 139.
JOINT AGREEMENTS. Right to negotiate-See "Representation Rights."
JOINT BAGGAGE AND EXPRESS MEN. See "Baggagemen Handling
Express."
JOINT EMPLOYEES.
Question whether certain baggage and express agents are employees of rail-
road company and governed by provisions of Clerks' National Agreement,
or employees of Express Company and governed by Express Employees'
Agreement, or employees of both and governed by both agreements. Decided
that such men are employees of Express Company and should be gov-
erned by Sup. 19 to G. O. 27, Express Employees' National Agreement, and
Decision 3 of Labor Board. LA&SL-Clerks. Decision No. 86.
Dispute regarding proper application of Decision No. 2 to certain clerical
employees who are joint employees of the carrier and the Western Union
Telegraph Company, the total compensation being carried on the payrolls
of the carrier, and one-half of same billed against the Western Union Tele-
graph Company. On January 1, 1920, the Western Union Telegraph Com-
pany increased the wages of its employees 15 per cent, and requested that this
increase be added to their portion of the monthly compensation of these
joint employees, which was equivalent to a 7½ per cent increase in the monthly
rates in effect on December 31, 1919. In the application of Decision No. 2, the
carrier applied the full increase to rates in effect January 1, 1920, prior to
the application of the increase granted to the Telegraph Company. Em-
ployees are contending that the increase under Decision No. 2 should be added
to the rates in effect 12:01 a. m., March 1, 1920. Decision-Claim of em-
ployees sustained. D&RG-Clks. Decision No. 882.
JOINT NEGOTIATIONS.
dling of."
Conducting-See "Negotiations-ioint han
117
JURISDICTIONAL RIGHTS. See "Representation Rights."
JURISDICTION OF LABOR BOARD UNDER TRANSPORTA
TION ACT.
1. Limitation under Act
2. Matters arising before enactment of Act
3. Non-compliance with provisions of Act
1. Limitation under Act.
Question as to jurisdiction of Labor Board under the Transportation Act,
1920, over certain interurban or suburban electric railways. Application dis-
missed-Board without jurisdiction. SFER&PCo-Interurban Ry-FDD&S-
P&N-L&WV-FERY-D&I-H&M-CLS&SB-NYW&B-W&OD—E—F_
C-TClerks-DSC-T-MofW-Sig., Decision No. 33.
Question as to whether Labor Board has jurisdiction over the American
Refrigerator Transit Company. Decision-Board decides that this company
is not a common carrier, that it does not come within the provisions of the
Transportation Act, and Board has no jurisdiction of dispute. ARTCo-
SC Clerks. Decision No. 211.
Claim of clerks in office of assistant to division superintendent St. Thomas,
Ontario, for additional compensation for certain work performed for claim and
maintenance of way departments of the Pere Marquette Railway. Decision-
Employes in question being engaged in work outside of the boundary of the
United States, and the Labor Board being of the opinion that authority vested
in it by the Transportation Act does not extend beyond the territorial limits
of the United States, decides that it has no jurisdiction in this dispute and
the case is, therefore, removed from the docket and file closed. PM-Clks.
Decisions Nos. 380 and 394.
Claim of certain clerks for payment for overtime worked in excess of 8
hours per day. Prior to January 1, 1919, the employees involved were working
52 hours per week. They made request that their hours of service be re-
duced to 48 hours per week and arranged so that they would work 834 hours
on weekdays and 44 hours on Saturday, which arrangement was agreed to by
the carrier and placed in effect on January 1, 1919, and continued in effect
after the issuance of the clerks' national agreement, effective January 1, 1920.
In October, 1920, employees made claim that all employees who had worked
under this arrangement should be paid overtime after 8 hours from the effective
date of the clerks' national agreement. On December 16, 1920, an agreement
was entered into between the employees and the Superintendent of Terminals
at the point in question, establishing an 8-hour day for the first five days of
the week and a 5-hour day on Saturday, in consideration of which the em-
ployees agreed to waive all claims for overtime for the first five days of the
week which had been worked prior to December 16, 1920. On January 31, 1921,
carrier cancelled the agreement of December 16, 1920, and gave notice to the
employees that thereafter the hours of service would be 8 per day six
days per week, taking the position that the officer who entered into the agree-
ment in question exceeded his authority in doing so. Employees entered pro-
test and on February 7, 1921, an agreement was made restoring the condi-
tions which extended from January 1, 1919, to December 16, 1920, the em-
ployees waiving all claims for overtime which might be worked while this
agreement was in effect pending settlement of their claim for overtime worked
from effective date of clerks' national agreement to December 16, 1920. At
hearing conducted by the Board the employees modified their request to cover
the period from March 1, 1920, to December 16, 1920. Employees also con-
tend for continuance of the 45-hour week under Rule 57 of national agree-
ment, as well as under the local agreement of December 16, 1920. Carrier
takes position that the Labor Board has no jurisdiction in this case, claim-
ing that Board has no authority to make any decision either denying or sus-
taining a claim for "wages due"; that this is a matter for the courts to de-
termine under the working agreement in effect during the period for which
the claim is made. Carrier further contends that all previous contracts were
annulled by the agreement of February 7, 1921, that the claim for overtime is
118
not justified inasmuch as these employees were by an agreement working a
48-hour week and the hours were changed at their request, in order that they
might be off Saturday afternoons, and that the 45-hour week should not be
allowed because agreement of February 7, 1921, provided for a 48-hour week.
Decision-Board took jurisdiction in this dispute stating that it has the au-
thority to grant or deny claim for overtime; and decides that as it is con-
clusively shown that the employees requested and were granted a 48-hour
week on January 1, 1919, and the hours were arranged to suit their con-
venience the claim for overtime for work performed in excess of 8 hours the
first five days of the week is denied; and that for the reasons herein set forth in
denying the claim for overtime the Board denies the request for the estab-
lishment of a 45-hour week and considers that it is a question to be de-
termined as a part of the submission made as a result of the conference held
under Decision No. 119. C.I.&L.-Clks. Decision No. 607.
Request of carrier for authority to reduce rates of pay for its employees in
train and engine service, station and telegraph service, maintenance of equip-
ment and maintenance of way departments. On July 31, 1921, owing to in-
ability to meet operating expenses, this carrier ceased operation. Under
date of October 10, 1921, the representative of the receiver addressed to the
representatives of the organizations whose members were previously employed
by the carrier a notice of desire to resume operations, under certain con-
ditions specifically set forth therein, and employees were requested to con-
fer with representatives of the carrier, with a view of considering re-
sumption of operations under a reduced scale of wages. Conferences were
held, but failed of agreement on the question of just and reasonable wages,
and on December 20, 1921, the carrier filed with the Board an application
for decision, stating that conferences with the employees with reference
to the establishment of just and reasonable wages had been held, and re-
quested the Board to grant a hearing for consideration of the wages which it
proposed to put into effect, which proposal contemplated a 25 per cent reduc-
tion below the decreases authorized by Decision No. 147. At the hearing, the
employees contended that proper conferences had not been held, in compliance
with Section 301 of the Transportation Act, and requested that the Board
give consideration only to the question of jurisdiction, and, if the Board de-
cided that it had jurisdiction, to set a further hearing for the discussion of the
merits of the carrier's proposal. Decision-The Board takes jurisdiction of this
dispute and decides that the proposition contained in the submission made by the
representatives of the carrier, dated October 10, 1921, shall be accepted by the
employees, based upon a continuation of the agreements as working conditions
that were in effect as of January 1, 1921, or in lieu thereof, the decisions of
Board as rendered in connection with rules which superseded the several agree-
ments in effect as of January 1, 1921. The Board further states that while the
matter is not in issue at this time, it recommends that all former employees,
parties to this dispute, be reinstated with the continuity of their seniority un-
impaired. Conferences to be held between the representatives of the employees,
parties to this dispute, and the carrier, not later than March 1, 1922, to properly
and fairly apply this decision. M&NA-E-F-T-C-Disprs-ShCfts-Mof
W-Telegrs. Decision No. 724.
2. Matters arising before enactment of Act.
Where in 1916 when forces were reduced, extra yard brakeman accepted po-
sition as switchtender with understanding that he would retain seniority rights
as yard brakeman, and where in eleven months later he resumed duty as yard
brakeman with seniority as of date of employment in that capacity and no
question raised at that time, claim is now made that seniority should only date
from date of reentering service as yard brakeman. Board without jurisdic-
tion-matter complained of having occurred before passage of Transportation
Act. N&W-Tr. Decision No. 72.
Where yard brakeman, after completing his regular shift, is required to con-
tinue on succeeding shift, account shortage of men, and works therein for two
hours and forty-five minutes before being relieved, claim is made for one day's
pay at time and one-half, in addition to pay for his regular shift. Board
119
without jurisdiction-matter having occurred before passage of Transporta-
tion Act. N&W-Tr. Decision No. 73.
Request for reinstatement with pay for time lost of brakeman dismissed
account violation of Rule G (Drinking). Board without jurisdiction-mat-
ter having occurred prior to passage of Transportation Act. N&W-Tr. De-
cision No. 74.
Claim of passenger brakeman for one day's pay at local freight rates,
account being required to shift freight cars in order to turn their passenger
train on wye at end of trip. Board without jurisdiction-matter occurring
prior to passage of Transportation Act. N&W-Tr. Decision No. 75.
Request that colored brakeman, who was given thirty days' suspension for
failure to flag passenger train, be taken out of service. Board without juris-
diction, matter having occurred before passage of Transportation Act. N&W_
Tr. Decision No. 77.
Where yard conductor performing work train service during portion of
his yard day made claim for highest rate (work train) for days on which
the two classes of service was required and which claim as presented was
allowed, claim is now made for back pay to January, 1915, for occasions on
which such combination service was performed and for which only yard rates
had been paid. Board without jurisdiction-matter having occurred before
passage of Transportation Act. N&W-Tr. Decision No. 79.
Request that passenger brakeman, dismissed in April, 1919, for unsatis-
factory service, be reinstated and paid for time lost. Board without juris-
diction account matter having occurred before passage of Transportation Act.
N&W-Tr. Decision No. 81.
Where rule provides that when a sufficient number of men have been
assigned to certain pool runs, no emergency train men will be put on, but
trainmen already assigned, accumulated at other end of run, will be dead-
headed at company's expense when needed, or if emergency arises necessitating
use of emergency trainmen, and layover of the assigned trainmen at terminals
exceeds eighteen hours, they will either be deadheaded or paid overtime for
such layover, claim is made by certain conductors for overtime for time so
held, alleging use of emergency crews in violation of the rules. Board with-
out jurisdiction-matter occurring before passage of Transportation Act.
N&W-C(a) & (b). Decision No. 83.
Dismissal of conductor and fireman account absent without permission.
Board without jurisdiction account case occurring before passage of Trans-
portation Act. Interstate RR-EF-CT. Decision No. 32.
Claim of brakeman for minimum passenger day for extra service per-
formed before beginning regular assignment. Board without jurisdiction,
account matter having occurred before passage of Transportation Act. SP-
C&T. Decision No. 318.
Claim of certain conductors and trainmen, assigned to through and ir-
regular freight service, for local rates of pay account used on melon trains on
certain days; crews regularly assigned to melon-hauling trains being paid
local rates. Board without jurisdiction, matter having occurred before passage
of Transportation Act. SP-C&T. Decision No. 319.
Claim for time consumed by through and irregular freight crews setting
out and picking up cars and trains at certain points. Board without juris-
diction, matter having occurred before passage Transportation Act. SP-
C&T. Decision No. 320.
Claim of extra passenger brakeman for service trip account freight brake-
man called and used. Board without jurisdiction, matter having occurred be-
fore passage Transportation Act. SP-C&T. Decision No. 321.
Claim for one hour switching by conductor and crew after arrival at
terminal in short turnaround passenger service, December 24, 1919. Decision-
Matter complained of having occurred before passage of Transportation
Act, by which Labor Board was created, Board decides, that it is without
jurisdiction and application is, therefore, dismissed. NWPac—C&T. De-
cision No. 491.
Claim for reinstatement of conductor dismissed from service-no facts
given. Decision-Matter complained of having occurred before passage of
120
Transportation Act, by which Labor Board was created, Board decides it is
without jurisdiction and application is, therefore, dismissed. CStPM&O-C&T.
Decision No. 495.
Claim of agent for pay under call rule account conductor of train, which
departed from station outside of period of agent's regular assignment, getting
clearance from dispatcher by telephone. Decision-Matter complained of hav-
ing occurred before passage of Transportation Act, 1920, and the Board
being of the opinion that this act was not intended to have a retroactive or
retrospective effect decides it has no jurisdiction in this dispute and file is,
therefore, closed. CM&StP-Tel. Decision No. 563.
Dispute with reference to proper rate of pay of head clerk in the over-
charge claim department. Decision-It appears that this dispute covers a
controversy which arose during the period of Federal control and has already
been the subject to a decision by the Director General of Railroads. Board
decides, therefore, that it has no jurisdiction and case is removed from
docket and file closed. Colo&Sou-Clerks. Decision No. 575.
Dispute with reference to proper rate of pay of certain clerical employee—
no facts given. Decision-Matter referred to having occurred before passage
of the Transportation Act, under which this Board was created, and the
Board being of the opinion that said act was not intended to have retroactive
or retrospective effect, Board decides that it has no jurisdiction in this dispute,
and it is, therefore, removed from the docket and file closed. ACL-Čiks.
Decision No. 761.
Claim of employee for foreman's rate of pay from February 1st to De-
cember 16, 1920, employees contending that this employee should have been
classified and rated as B&B foreman during the period he was in charge of
the gang, when it is alleged he was required to supervise work usually per-
formed by B&B gangs. Carrier takes position that the work performed by the
gang over which this employee had supervision was in connection with the
framing of wings and placing of surface guards, which it is claimed does not
require men of great skill, and that the work done by this employee was far
different from that performed by B&B foremen. Decision-Board decides that
that portion of the dispute affecting the period February 1st to February 29,
1920, is not within the jurisdiction of the Board, and in regard to the re-
mainder of the dispute the Board decides that the supervisory service per-
formed by the employee in question was not comparable with the service usually
performed by B&B foremen, and position of carrier is therefore sustained.
T&P-MofW. Decision No. 894.
3. Non-compliance with provisions of Act.
Application for hearing made after employees had left the service of the
carrier. Decision—Application dismissed as applicants were not adopting every
available means to avoid interruption to the operation of the carriers, and
no showing made that applicants were employees of any carrier. EdwAMc-
Hugh&others. Decision No. 1.
Question as to meaning of term "outlying points" as used in deadhead
rule, reading in part "When deadheading to relieve men at outlying points
who obtain leave of absence of their own volition, one-half pay will be allowed,
except in case of sickness when full pay will be allowed"-Committee contends
"outlying point" is an intermediate point between terminals while road con-
tends that all deadheading brought about through employees obtaining leave
of absence of their own volition should be paid for at one-half pay. Case dis-
missed by Board, requirements of Transportation Act not having been com-
plied with. N&W-C. Decision No. 82.
Where road, party to Decision 2, served thirty days' advanced notice that
effective February 1, 1921, pay of all employees would be reduced by one-half
of sum of all increases effective since December 31, 1917, due to financial in-
ability of road to pay present wages, question as to right of road to make
such reduction without authority of Labor Board. Decision-Board without
jurisdiction until Section 301 of Transportation Act has been complied with
and conference held between parties concerned as to whether present wages are
just and reasonable. AB&A-EFCT-Clks-SCTMofWD. Decision No. 89.
121
Where road, party to Decision 2, served thirty days' advanced notice that
on February 1, 1921, pay of all employees would be reduced to basis in effect
on April 30, 1920, due to financial inability of road to pay present wages, and
on February 1 actually put such reduced rates into effect, question as to right
of road to make such reduction without authority of Labor Board. De-
cision-Board without jurisdiction until Sec. 301 of Transportation Act has
been complied with and conference held between parties concerned as to
whether present wages are just and reasonable, or if conference is refused
Board will proceed under Section 313 of the Act. M&NA-EFCTDSCT.
Decision No. 90.
Request for reinstatement of five men discharged by management-no facts
given. Decision—Application not filed according to law; case, therefore, dis-
missed. Butler County RR-REDeptAFofL. Decision No. 109.
Where Receiver of road, party to Decision 2 of Labor Board, reduced
wages of employees by order of the Court, and where employees involved,
upon such reduction being put into effect, left the service of the carrier in con-
cert, question as to violation of Decision 2 and Transportation Act by Re-
ceiver of road and by organizations of employees concerned. Decision—(1)
Receiver violated Decision 2 by failure to hold conference as directed by
Board's Decision No. 89, and, in case of disagreement, referring dispute to
Board for decision; putting into effect instead the wage reduction ordered
by the Court which latter action was contrary to the letter and spirit of the
Transportation Act-(2) Board cannot condone what in itself was wrong-
ful act on part of employees, whose duty, on learning that Receiver would
not join in referring dispute to the Board, was to, themselves, refer it to the
Board-(3) Due to complication resulting from the strike, Labor Board be-
lieves there is nothing to be gained at the moment by requesting Court to recall
its order of February 28 and to direct reinstatement of former employees; it
does, however, request the Court to direct the Receiver to confer with the
petitioners upon question of what constitutes just and reasonable wages, etc.,
and in case of disagreement to refer dispute to Board for decision-(4)
Board also requests petitioners to attempt again to confer with Receiver re-
garding justness and reasonableness of wages and in case of failure to agree
to submit dispute to Board for decision-(5) As the U. S. District Court of
the Northern District of Georgia is exercising jurisdiction in regard to mat-
ter of wages for the employees, in order to prevent conflict of jurisdiction,
Board will take no further action in the matter until the Court shall approve
or deny the Board's requests. AB&A-Engrs. et al. Decision No. 121.
Question as to whether dispute on proposed reduction in wages, applica-
tion for decision having been filed with Board by carrier, is properly before
the Board, representatives of employees contending that conferences as con-
templated in Section 301 of Transportation Act had not been held. Decision-
Letter and spirit of Sec. 301 of Transportation Act have not been complied
with by the carrier, and will not have been complied with until carrier shall
have met in conference or endeavored to meet in conference the duly desig-
nated representatives of the employees directly interested in the dispute, and
in case of disagreement shall have properly certified the dispute to the Board.
The majority of such employees shall have the right to select their said rep-
resentatives as provided in Principle 15, Decision 119. PullmanCo-ShCrafts.
Decision No. 174.
Claim of certain B&B employees for compensation under section (f),
Article V of national maintenance of way agreement for deadheading from
their home to point of employment after having spent Sunday at their home
point. Decision-Board does not understand that the spirit and intent of
the Transportation Act has been complied with in handling of this dispute and,
therefore, remands the case and directs that the spirit and intent of the labor
provisions of the act be given proper consideration by the parties to this
dispute. Upon evidence that this has been done and no agreement reached
the Board will render its decision. C&NW-MofW. Decision No. 650.
JUST AND REASONABLE RULES. What constitutes.
See "Decision No. 222 and Addenda 3 and 6 thereto" (Shop Employees),
effective August 16, October 16, and December 1, 1921, respectively.
122
Decision No. 501 (M. of W. Employees), effective December 16, 1921.
Decision No. 630 (Clerical Employees), effective February 1, 1922.
Decision No. 707 (Signal Employees), effective February 16, 1922.
Decision No. 721 (Dispatchers), effective March 1, 1922.
Decisions Nos. 722 and 723 (Express Employees), effective March 1, 1922.
Decision No. 725 (Sta. Fire., Oilers), effective March 1, 1922.
Decision No. 726 (Supervisors of Mechanics), effective March 1, 1922.
Decision No. 757 (Telegraph Employees), effective March 16, 1922.
Decision No. 830 (Sta. Engineers), effective April 1, 1922.
JUST AND REASONABLE WAGES. What constitutes.
See "Decisions 2, 20, 54, 107."
See "Decision 147 and Add. 1 and 2 thereto." Decision Nos. 148, 214,
215, 217, 228, and 229.
LABORERS.
Where rates for common laborers were voluntarily increased subsequent
to March 1, 1920, claim is made that increases under Decision 2 should be
added to such increased rates, instead of rates in effect as of February 29,
1920. Claim denied-disposed of by Int. 2 to Decision 2. Rutland RR-
MofW. Decision No. 48.
Question as to whether employees engaged in handling rail, lumber, scrap,
etc., under supervision of foremen around the storehouses, classified as la-
borers, are entitled to increase of twelve cents per hour under Sec. 7, Art. II,
or to eight and one-half cents under Sec. 9, Art. II, of Decision 2. De-
cision-Entitled to eight and one-half cents under Sec. 9, Art. II-employees
in question are not station, platform, storeroom, freight handlers or truck-
ers, etc., within the intent of Sec. 7 of Art. II. EP&SW-Clks. Decision
No. 125.
:)
Claim is made that provisions of Section 8, Article III, Decision 2, should
apply to all laborers who work under supervision of Master Mechanic and
Roundhouse Foremen, and not only to laborers such as engine watchmen and
wipers, fire builders, ash pit men, etc., as applied by company. Decision—(a
Sec. 8, Art. III, Decision 2 shall be applied to laborers employed in and around
shops and roundhouses who were classified and paid under Paragraph (a)
Art. V, Sup. 7—(b) Sec. 6, Art. III, Decision 2 shall be applied to laborers
employed in and around shops and roundhouses who were classified and paid
under Paragraph (b), Art. V, Sup. 7. O&NW-Mof Way. Decision No. 128.
Question whether employees engaged in handling material under super-
vision of foreman or sub-foreman, in yards adjacent to storehouses, are en-
titled to increase of 12c per hour under Sec. 7, Art. II, Decision 2. Decision-
Employees in question are not storeroom or stockroom freight handlers, or
truckers, and not entitled to increase of 12c per hour under Sec. 7, Art. II.
DL&W-Clerks. Decision No. 136. MStP&SSM-Clerks. Decision Nos. 186
and 185.
Claim for water service helpers' rate for section laborer assigned to certain
duties in connection with laying of water and sewer pipes. Decision-Board
decides carrier was within rights in assigning this section laborer to assist in
the performance of the work in question without changing the classification
and rating, but states that the decision should not be construed as lending its
approval to assignment of laborers at laborers' rate to perform work recog-
nized as that of mechanics' helpers. MP-MofW. Decision No. 260.
LABOR FOREMEN. See "Foremen-Labor."
LABOR UNIONS-MEMBERSHIP IN. See "Unions-Right of Em-
ployees to Hold Membership In."
LAYOVERS AT TERMINALS. See “Terminal Layovers.”
LEAVE OF ABSENCE.
Demotion of clerk, account failure to qualify, and failing to report for duty
upon expiration of leave of absence. Board decides employee, by own act,
123
automatically separated himself from service of carrier. SP-Clerks. De-
cision No. 16.
Request for leave of absence and annual card transportation for general
chairman representing maintenance of way employees. Decision-It is a
recognized and time-honored practice on practically all roads to grant leaves
of absence and free transportation to general chairmen representing large
groups of employees, and it is therefore decision of Board that the request is
justified. W&LE-MofW. Decision No. 333.
Request for reinstatement of train dispatcher with full seniority rights and
pay for all time lost since date on which his services as train dispatcher
terminated. Employee in question was removed from position of train dis-
patcher account issuance of alleged improper train order, and permitted to
exercise his seniority rights in telegraph and station service. He then made
request for leave of absence, which was granted, and at expiration of such
leave failed to return or report for duty, and was therefore considered out
of the service. Decision-Request denied. CM&StP-ATDA. Decision
No. 274.
•
Where employee, after having been granted a year's leave of absence to
perform the duties of general chairman of his organization, was denied a
further extension of six months, question as to right of carrier, upon failure
of said employee to report for work at the expiration of his leave, to remove
his name from the seniority roster. Decision-It has been a recognized and
time-honored practice of practically all carriers having working agreements
with their employees to grant leaves of absence to general chairmen represent-
ing large groups of employees in order that they might perform the duties
incumbent upon that position. Board decides, therefore, that carrier was not
justified in refusing further leave to this general chairman, and orders that
he be restored to seniority list with his standing prior to expiration of the
last leave granted by the carrier. KCM&O-MofW. Decision No. 230.
Dispute with reference to indefinite leave of absence for stenographer in
master mechanic's office. This employee requested leave of absence to accept
position of assistant to secretary of System Federation of Shop Crafts, which
application was declined by carrier. Employees state that the duties of this
position consist of handling funds of the system federation and correspondence
relating to the business of the organization, and that under the provisions of
Rules 46 and 47 of the Clerks' National Agreement the employee in question.
is entitled to an indefinite leave of absence. Carrier holds that it is not proper
to grant an indefinite leave of absence in this case under rules referred to.
Decision-Position of carrier sustained. MoPac-Clks. Decision No. 506.
Request for reinstatement and pay for time lost of certain machinist who
it is claimed was granted verbal leave of absence by the foreman to conduct
a campaign in connection with his candidacy for Congress, but who upon being
defeated in the election and returning to service was denied employment on
basis that he did not secure a proper leave of absence and was therefore
considered as having voluntarily left the service. Decision-Board decides
that this machinist shall be restored to his former position with seniority rights
unimpaired and paid for all time lost, deducting any amount that he may
have earned while engaged in other employment during the period out of the
service. GrNor-ShCfts. Decision No. 586.
Dispute with reference to leave of absence for certain employee acting as
general chairman of the clerks' organization. This employee made application
for a 30-day leave of absence with privilege of extension. Application was
approved with understanding that extension would be granted provided request
was made before the expiration of the 30-day period, but the extension privi-
lege was subsequently cancelled in writing by the carrier, and later when the
employee requested an extension of his leave his request was denied. Decision
-It appears that after this dispute was submitted to the Board this employee
was released from the carrier's service, but with an appeal for reinstatement.
Therefore, there is nothing for the Board to decide in this dispute. However,
if he should be reinstated it follows that in line with the time-honored practice
of granting leave of absence to regularly elected general chairmen the Board
would then find that a leave of absence was proper and should be allowed so
·
124
long as he remained the regularly chosen representative of the clerks. G&SI—
Clks. Decision No. 606.
Request for reinstatement of train dispatcher. Employee in question was
taken out of service and requested and was granted a leave of absence for a
certain period. Employee reported to superintendent by letter two days before
expiration of his leave, but did not report in person. Several months later
he was notified that in view of having over-stayed his leave of absence he
was considered out of the service. Decision-Basing decision on evidence
before it, Board decides that request for reinstatement of this employee to
position of train dispatcher is denied. However, as he reported by letter to
the superintendent before expiration of his leave for instructions as to when
to report for assignment, and instructions were not forthcoming, if he still
desires to return to the telegraph service he shall be permitted to do so and
be entitled to the same consideration as was the intent of the carrier to extend
him had he personally reported to the superintendent on expiration of his
leave of absence. CM&StP-ATDAssn. Decision No. 625.
LEGAL EFFECT OF LABOR PROVISIONS OF TRANSPORTA-
TION ACT AS VIEWED BY LABOR BOARD. See "Trans-
portation Act (2).”
LIGHTER CAPTAINS.
Increases granted by Labor Board to-See "Decision 4."
LINE CLERKS-MATTER OF NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT
FOR GENERAL OFFICE CLERKS INDEPENDENTLY OF.
See "Representation Rights."
LINEMEN.
Claim that certain employees, now classified as linemen, should be classified
and paid as electricians under Rules 43 and 140, and as road mechanics under
Rule 15, of the National Agreement. Decision-Employees in question are
performing work specified in Rule 140 and shall be classified and paid as elec-
tricians in accordance with Rule 43; and employees regularly assigned to road
service shall be paid in accordance with Rule 15. OWRR&NCOSC.
cision No. 212.
LOCAL FREIGHT SERVICE.
De-
Claim of crew performing local service for additional compensation for
switching at terminal not in connection with making up or disposing of their
own train. Rule governing specifies "station switching" as part of the serv-
ice and makes no mention as to whether or not the switching must be per-
formed in connection_with_the_making up or disposing of their own train.
Claim denied. OWRR&NCo-E&F. Decision No. 101.
Shall the fifty-two cents per 100 miles for Engineers, and forty cents per
100 miles for Firemen in local freight service as specified in Sec. (b) of Art.
IV, Sup. 15, be proportionately increased under Decision 2 of Labor Board.
Decision-No. LA&SL-E&F. Int. 17 to Decision No. 2.
Request for additional paragraph amending schedule rule which defines
local or way freight service. Parties at interest agreed upon settlement in
this case and withdrew same from consideration by Labor Board. OWRR&N
-E&F. Decision No. 310.
Claim of certain conductors and trainmen, assigned to through and irregu-
lar freight service, for local rates of pay account used on melon trains on
certain days, crews regularly assigned to melon-hauling trains being paid local
rates. Board without jurisdiction, matter having occurred before passage of
Transportation Act. SP-C&T. Decision No. 319.
LOCOMOTIVES-RATES FOR NEW TYPES OF. See "Engines-
Rates for New Types of."
LOST TIME. Pay for-See "Time lost-pay for."
125
LUBRICATOR FILLERS.
Question whether employees engaged exclusively in filling lubricators are
entitled to classification and rating of machinist helpers; also whether carrier
was warranted in making reductions from an employee's earnings as result of
conflicting decisions rendered by Board of Adjustment. Decision-(a) Em-
ployees if engaged exclusively in filling lubricators are not entitled to clas-
sification and rating of machinist helpers unless and until such classification
and rating is result of agreement between carrier and duly authorized repre-
sentatives of said employees-(b) Carrier has advised Labor Board that no
deductions will be made, which closes this portion of dispute. C&S-MofW.
Decision No. 144.
MCHUGH, EDW. A.
Application of (and others), for consideration and hearing of case by
Board. Declined-such application not complying with provisions of Trans-
portation Act. (Outlawstrikers' case.) Decision No. 1.
MAINTENANCE OF WAY AND STRUCTURES FORCES.
Increases granted by Labor Board to-See "Art. III, Decision 2." See
"Art. III, Decision 5."
Application of Decision 2 to-See "Decision 2-Application of."
Decreases, effective July 1, 1921, covering-See "Decision 147 and Add.
1 and 2 thereto." See "Decision 214."
Rules and working conditions for-See "Decision 501."
MALLET ENGINES. Request for seats on-See "Engines-requests for
seats on.
""
MANNING OF TRAINS. See "Consist of Crews."
MARINE EMPLOYEES.
Increases granted by Labor Board to-See "Art. X, Decision 2."
Request of marine employees on railroad operated floating equipment in
Port of San Francisco for increases in wages and changes in rules and working
conditions. Denied. MM&PofA-MEBA-FBUofC-NWP-SP-AT&SF
-WP. Decision No. 20.
Decreases, effective July 1, 1921, covering-See "Decision 147 and Add. 1
and 2 thereto."
This decision relates to the undecided portion of Docket 17, controversy
between the organizations of employees and the carriers indicated, and is
applicable only to the question of rules governing working conditions for the
employees on railroad-operated floating equipment in the port of San Francisco,
California. Evidence was submitted in this case by the interested parties on
August 31, September 1, 3 and 4, 1920. Decision No. 20 of the Board, dated
November 23, 1920, disposed of dispute regarding wages, but the Board did
not undertake to consider or change the rules and working conditions then in
existence, which it understood at that time, and does now, are those in force
by the authority of the U. S. Railroad Administration. Decision-Due to
the lapse of time since this question was heard, and the possibility that condi-
tions today may be materially changed from those existing in 1920, the Board
deems it advisable to remand this question to the interested parties with the
request that they again confer on the subject matter of the dispute, and
endeavor to reach an agreement as to rules covering conditions of service.
Should the conference fail to reach an agreement, a joint submission, if
possible, otherwise ex-parte submission, of the disputed questions should be
made, and the Board furnished fifteen copies, the submission to be prepared
in the form outlined in this decision. NWP ATSF-WP-MM PofA-
MEBA-FBUofC. Decision No. 887.
MASTERS ON RAILROAD OPERATED FERRY AND TUG
BOATS. See "Marine Employees."
MATES ON
RAILROAD OPERATED FERRY AND TUG
BOATS. See "Marine Employees."
126
MATRONS.
Question whether positions of "Matrons" at stations come within the scope
of the Clerks' National Agreement and are governed by provisions of said
agreement. Decision-Yes, "station attendants" as defined in Art. 1, Rule 1.
Par. 2. SP-Clks. Decision No. 38.
MECHANIC'S WORK-PERFORMANCE OF BY OTHERS THAN
MECHANICS.
Question as to whether certain telephone and telegraph equipment super-
visors shall be permitted to perform mechanics' work. Evidence indicates
that carrier employs three men who are classified as telephone and telegraph
equipment supervisors, paid a monthly salary and allowed actual expenses
while traveling on the carrier's business. Employees contend that these men
are used to perform mechanics' work in violation of Rule 32 of the national
agreement, and call attention to Decision No. 1682 rendered by Board of
Adjustment No. 2 of the U. S. Railroad Administration regarding classifica-
tion of telegraph and telephone supervisors, which decision provided in effect
that said supervisors should not be permitted to perform mechanics' work.
Decision-Labor Board does not construe language of Rule 32 as prohibiting
supervisory employees instructing other employees in the performance of their
work whereby to carry out such instructions it is necessary to perform certain
mechanics' work, nor is it the Board's construction of that rule that such
supervisory employees are prohibited from performing emergency work where
mechanics are not available. It is, however, the Board's opinion, based on
the evidence before it, that the employees in question have been performing
certain work that should have been properly assigned to mechanics, which
practice is contrary to the intent of the rules and should be discontinued.
CRI&P-ShopCrafts. Decision No. 405.
At a certain outlying point where several switch engines used in mine
service lay over, there were employed for several years prior to October, 1920,
one boilermaker, one hostler, one hostler helper, two engine watchmen, two
fire cleaners, and one supply man. On or about October 1, 1920, carrier
posted five-day notice and laid off the boilermaker, who was the only mechanic
employed at the point in question. At the expiration of the notice another
boilermaker was brought from another division and assigned as a working
foreman, and he performs all of the mechanic's work previously done by the
boilermaker in question, and in addition thereto exercises supervision over
other employees at this point. Employees contend that Rules 18 and 27 of
the national agreement were violated and request that the boilermaker laid off
be returned to his job and allowed pay for time lost, while the carrier contends
that it was entirely within its rights in assigning a working foreman under
the provisions of Rule 32. Decision-While the Board recognizes the right
of the carrier to appoint employees of its own selection to important super-
visory positions, it does not feel that it was the intent of the rules as incor-
porated in the national agreement to permit the carrier to displace employees
at small outlying points by the exercise of this privilege without good and
sufficient reasons, and decides in this particular dispute that the carrier was
not justified in displacing this boilermaker, the only mechanic employed at the
point in question, and that he should be reinstated to his former position with
seniority rights unimpaired; but in view of his declination of employment at
another point he shall only be reimbursed to the extent that he would have
suffered a wage loss, if any, on the basis of what he would have earned in
the position offered, as compared with what he would have earned on his
regular position. MP-ShopCrafts. Decision No. 409.
Dispute in regard to alleged violation of Rules 32 and 33 of the national
agreement—no facts given. Decision-Board understands that subsequent to
filing this dispute an agreement has been negotiated and consummated and that
further negotiations will be conducted with a view to disposing of this dispute.
In view of this fact the case is considered closed without prejudice to the
right of either party in making further submission in connection therewith if
it so desires. PullmanCo-ShopCrafts. Decision No. 435.
127
Does Rule 55 of Addendum 3 to Decision No. 222 permit others than
mechanics, who are members of the crew assigned to the scrapping of equip-
ment referred to in this rule, to use acetylene cutting torch in connection with
the work. Case withdrawn by employees and file closed. B&O-ShopCrafts.
Decision No. 796.
Question as to whether carrier has the right under Rule 32 of the National
Shop Agreement to require foremen of water service department to perform
work of regular mechanics, in making repairs to pumps at outlying points where
no mechanics are available. Decision-At oral hearing conducted in connection
with this case, both parties advised that the matter had been adjusted satis-
factorily. The docket is, therefore, closed. GRR-ShpCrf. Decision No.
921.
Question as to application of Rule 32 of the National Shop Agreement
and claim of employees for differential in rate of pay of certain mechanics.
No facts given. Decision-Board is in receipt of advice that this case has
been amicably settled, and that further action is not desired on the part of the
Board. The docket is, therefore, closed. L&N-ShpCrf. Decision No. 923.
MELON TRAINS.
Claim of certain conductors and trainmen, assigned to through and irregu-
lar freight service, for local rates of pay account used on melon trains on
certain days, crews regularly assigned to melon-hauling trains being paid local
rates. Board without jurisdiction, matter having occurred before passage of
Transportation Act. SP-C&T. Decision No. 319.
MEMBERSHIP IN LABOR UNIONS. See "Unions-Right of Em-
ployees to Hold Membership in."
MEMORANDA ISSUED BY RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION
IN CONNECTION WITH APPLICATION OF SUPPLE-
MENTS 15 AND 16. See "Railroad Administration-Rulings, Or-
ders, Etc."
MESSENGERS.
Application of Increases under Decision 2 to-See "Decision 2—Applica-
tion of (1)."
MILEAGE GUARANTEES. See "Guarantees.”
MILK TRAINS.
Where crews on certain passenger runs are required to load and unload
milk shipments, and also pick up and handle box cars loaded with milk, claims
made that such service constitutes miscellaneous service and through freight
rates should be paid. Decision--Claim denied. NWP-C&T. Decision
No. 347.
Dispute in regard to payment of terminal mileage on milk trains which
are operated as first-class trains. Prior to issuance of Supplement 24 to
G. O. 27, engineers and firemen in milk-train service were allowed terminal
mileage at terminals and turnaround points for disposing of train and hostling
their engines in accordance with certain schedule rules. It is the contention
of the employees that mileage allowed for this service was not an arbitrary
allowance, as the mileage was added to the mileage on the run, thereby extend-
ing the time when overtime would accrue; therefore it would in no way cause
double payment of the time, and that Supplement 24 and interpretation thereto
did not discontinue this mileage allowance. Carrier takes position that these
trains are classified as freight trains and should take freight-train conditions;
that no terminal allowances should be made, as the point in question is not
initial or final terminal of the trains involved; that all arbitrary allowances at
other than initial or final terminals were eliminated by Supplement 24; and
that the men are now being paid strictly in accordance with schedule condi-
tions. Decision-Article IV, on which employees base their claim, refers to
passenger service only. Under the provisions of the schedule (Article V)
engineers and firemen employed on milk trains receive freight-service rates.
Therefore, the claim is not justified and is denied. NYO&W-E&F. Deci-
sion No. 482.
128
MINE RUN SERVICE.
Shall the minimum for mine run service under existing agreement for
engineers, which is higher than mileage rate authorized under Sup. 15, be in-
creased by Decision 2. Yes. L&N-E&F. Int. 6 to Decision No. 2.
Claim for daily guarantee in assigned mine run service on days no service
is begun, under schedule rule. Sustained. D&SL-EFC&T. Decision No. 34.
Request for reclassification of "mine run" and "shifter" service, which
would have effect of increasing rates of pay from through freight to local.
Denied. N&W-C&T. Decision No. 60.
MINIMUM RATES.
1. Passenger Service.
2. Mine Runs
3. Branch Lines.
4. Mechanics.
1. Passenger Service.
Shall the passenger minimum under existing agreement, which is five cents.
in excess of minimum rate established by Sup. 15, be increased by Decision 2.
Decision-Yes. L&N-E&F. Int. 5 to Decision No. 2.
Shall the minimum rates for engineers in passenger service in effect prior
to Sup. 24 and preserved account being higher than minimum established
therein, be increased by Decision 2. Decision--Yes. SAL-E&F. Int. 11
to Decision No. 2.
Question as to proper application of Decision 2 to minimum day rates in
short turnaround passenger service. Settled locally and case withdrawn.
OWRR&N Co-E&F. Decision No. 95.
Prior to Sup. 16 certain runs were paid minimum day on each leg of trip
when last leg not made in same calendar day. Under Sup. 16 these runs were
placed on turnaround basis and calendar day disregarded, but as daily rates
previously allowed were higher than mileage rate, for miles run, of supplement,
such minima were retained. In the application of Decision 2 the mileage rates
were higher, thereby absorbing former minima, but committee contends that
such minima should not be absorbed but increases given under Decision 2
added to said daily minima. Decision-Denied. Management's method of
payment just and reasonable. RF&P-C&T. Decision No. 57.
2. Mine Runs.
Shall the minimum for mine run service under existing agreement for en-
gineers, which is higher than mileage rate authorized under Sup. 15, be in-
creased by Decision 2. Yes. L&N-E&F. Int. 6 to Decision No. 2.
3. Branch Lines.
Shall the minimum daily and monthly rates on branch lines, which are
higher than the revised main line rates provided for in Sup. 15 and 24, be in-
creased by Decision 2. Decision-Yes. L&N-E&F. Int. 7 to Decision No. 2.
4. Mechanics.
Dispute in regard to application of minimum rate of composite mechanic
to certain signal maintainers with less than four years' experience who were
considered composite mechanics under rulings of the Railroad Administration.
Decision-Evidence indicates that employees in question were classified as
composite mechanics in accordance with Interpretation 2 to Supplement 4
to G. O. 27. Employees who were receiving, prior to July 25, 1918, an amount
equal to or in excess of a minimum or hiring rate paid any craft represented
in the class of which they were composite shall be paid a minimum or hiring
rate of the highest rated craft represented in such composite service. Em-
ployees who prior to July 25, 1918, were receiving a lower rate than that paid
in any of the crafts of which they were a composite shall receive the step
rate in accordance with their years of experience as outlined in Section (5-a),
Supplement 4 to G. O. 27, with subsequent adjustments. If this decision has
129
effect of increasing rates of any employees such increased rates shall be made
effective July 1, 1921. C&A-Sig. Decision No. 795.
MISCELLANEOUS EMPLOYEES.
Increases granted by Labor Board to employees not otherwise provided
for-See "Art. XII, Decision 2." See "Art. IX, Decision 5."
Decreases, effective July 1, 1921, covering-See "Decision 147 and Add.
1 and 2 thereto."
MISCELLANEOUS SERVICE. See "Combination Service."
MISSISSIPPI CENTRAL RAILROAD.
Request that provisions of Decision 2 be applied to said carrier and or-
ganizations of employees covered by request. Granted. Add. 4 to Deci-
sion No. 2.
MIXED SERVICE.
Request that freight brakemen, instead of passenger brakemen, be assigned
to certain "mixed" branch line trains, which in effect is request for assignment
of two brakemen, instead of one as at present. Board decides trains in ques-
tion having been manned by one conductor and one flagman, both qualified
passenger men, since 1904, request for change is not now warranted. Ñ&W-
Tr. Decision No. 78.
MODIFICATION OF DECISION 119. See "Addendum 2 to Decision
119."
MONTHLY GUARANTEES. See "Guarantees."
MONTHLY RATED EMPLOYEES. Application of Decision 2 to-
See "Decision 2-Application of."
Computation of Overtime for-See "Overtime."
Pay for Sunday and Holiday Service. See "Sunday and Holiday Service."
MONTHLY RATES-ESTABLISHMENT OF. See "National Agree-
ments."
MULTIGRAPH OPERATORS-Application of Decision No. 2 to. See
"Decision No. 2-Application of.”
NATIONAL AGREEMENTS.
1. Shop
2. Maintenance of Way
3. Clerks
4. Express Employees
5. Signal Employees
6. Firemen and Oilers
1. Shop.
Question whether increases under Decision 2 to employees coming under
Rule 15 of National Shop Agreement should be based on 3,156 hours per
year, or 204 hours per month. Decision-Apply increase on basis of 3,156
hours per calender year. AT&SF-SC. Int. 3 to Decision No. 2.
Where certain employees coming under the provisions of National Shop
Agreement are members of the American Federation of Railroad Workers and
desire that organization to handle their grievance matters, question as to whether
under Rule 35 of the Shop Agreement that organization, not being a party to
said agreement, has the right to handle matters coming under the Shop Agree-
ment, and its committee be recognized as "the duly authorized local committee”
referred to in Rule 35 of said agreement. Employees sustained. B&M—AF
of RRW. Decision No. 70.
Question as to whether helpers who are regularly assigned to assist em-
ployees who are performing work in the maintenance of signals as provided for
in Rules 140 and 141 of Federated Shop Crafts' Agreement shall be increased
under Section 3, Art. IV, or under Art. IX, of Decision 2, it being agreed by
130
both parties to the dispute that the mechanics are electrical workers within the
meaning of Rules 140 and 141 of the National Shop Agreement. Decision-
Helpers in question are included in the classes of helpers specified in Sec.
3, Art IV, and shall receive the increase of 13c per hour provided therein.
C&EI-REDeptAFofL. Decision No. 129.
Claim that certain employees, now classified as linemen, should be classified
and paid as electricians under Rules 43 and 140, and as road mechanics under
Rule 15, of the National Agreement. Decision-Employees in question are per-
forming work specified in Rule 140 and shall be classified and paid as elec-
tricians in accordance with Rule 43; and employees regularly assigned to road
service shall be paid in accord with Rule 15. OWRR&N Co-SC. Decision
No. 212.
Dispute as to just and reasonable rules relating to overtime payments and
payments for regular and emergency road service to govern shop forces on
which disagreements had been certified to the Board in conformity with De-
cision 119. Decision-The seven rules set out in the decision as approved by
the Board, corresponding to the seven rules Nos. 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14 and 15 of
the National Shop Agreement are just and reasonable and shall apply, effective
August 16, 1921, to each of the carriers set out under the caption "Parties to
the dispute," except in such instances as any particular carrier may have
agreed with its employees upon one or more of said rules, in which case, the rule
or rules agreed upon by the carrier and its employees shall apply on said road.
C&NW et al-ShCfts. Decision No. 222 and Addenda.
Promulgation by Labor Board of certain additional rules relating to hours
of service, seniority, filling vacancies, reduction of forces, grievances, etc., to
govern shop forces, effective October 16, 1921, and December 1, 1921, which
the Board has determined to be just and reasonable, in addition to those
issued in Decision No. 222, superseding similar rules of National Shop Agree-
ment. Addenda 3 and 6 to Decision No. 222.
Question as to whether under Rule 10 of National Shop Agreement em-
ployees should be paid for time traveling to their home station when such
employees are permitted to go to bed for five or more hours on the cars on
which they are traveling. Decision-Under rule referred to employees shall
be paid for all time traveling, irrespective of whether or not they are relieved
and permitted to go to bed for the time specified. AA-SC. Decision
No. 338.
Where employee filling second trick (3 p. m. to 11 p. m.), position as
tender repairman, was laid off account reduction in force and exercised his
seniority by accepting first trick (7 a. m. to 3:15 p. m.), position in car depart-
ment, question as to whether said employee is entitled to overtime rates for
the first shift worked in the car department under Rule 13 of the national
agreement. Decision-Rule in question makes no distinction as to whether
or not employee is transferred at instance of carrier or of his own accord.
Board therefore decides that overtime in accordance with rule should be al-
lowed for the first shift of the change. CCC&StL-ShopCrafts. Decision
No. 353.
Question as to proper application of Decision No. 2 to telegraph and tele-
phone linemen coming within the scope of Rule 15 of the National Shop
Agreement. In applying Decision No. 2 carrier followed method prescribed
in Section 3 of Article XIII thereof. Employees claim that this is improper
application and call attention to Interpretation 3 to Decision No. 2, which
specified the method of applying increases to regularly assigned road-service
employees covered by Rule 15. Decision-Interpretation 3 to Decision No. 2
shall be followed in applying increases to the telegraph and telephone linemen
in question. SP-ShopCrafts. Decision No. 400.
Question as to whether certain telephone and telegraph equipment super-
visors shall be permitted to perform mechanics' work. Evidence indicates that
carrier employs three men who are classified as telephone and telegraph equip-
ment supervisors; paid a monthly salary and allowed actual expenses while
traveling on the carrier's business. Employees contend that these men are
used to perform mechanics' work in violation of Rule 32 of the national
agreement, and call attention to Decision No. 1682 rendered by Board of
131
Adjustment No. 2 of the U. S. Railroad Administration regarding classifica-
tion of telegraph and telephone supervisors, which decision provided in effect
that said supervisors should not be permitted to perform mechanics' work.
Decision-Labor Board does not construe language of Rule 32 as prohibiting
supervisory employees instructing other employees in the performance of their
work whereby to carry out such instructions it is necessary to perform certain
mechanics' work, nor is it the Board's construction of that rule that such
supervisory employees are prohibited from performing emergency work where
mechanics are not available. It is, however, the Board's opinion, based on the
evidence before it, that the employees in question have been performing certain
work that should have been properly assigned to mechanics, which practice
is contrary to the intent of the rules and should be discontinued. CRI&P-
ShopCrafts. Decision No. 405.
At a certain outlying point where several switch engines used in mine
service lay over, there were employed for several years prior to October, 1920,
one boilermaker, one hostler, one hostler helper, two engine watchmen, two
fire cleaners, and one supply man. On or about October 1, 1920, carrier posted
five-day notice and laid off the boilermaker, who was the only mechanic
employed at the point in question. At the expiration of the notice another
boilermaker was brought from another division and assigned as a working
foreman, and he performs all of the mechanic's work previously done by the
boilermaker in question, and in addition thereto exercises supervision over
other employees at this point. Employees contend that Rules 18 and 27 of
the national agreement were violated and request that the boilermaker laid off
be returned to his job and allowed pay for time lost, while the carrier con-
tends that it was entirely within its rights in assigning a working foreman
under the provisions of Rule 32. Decision-While the Board recognizes the
right of the carrier to appoint employees of its own selection to important
supervisory positions, it does not feel that it was the intent of the rules as
incorporated in the national agreement to permit the carrier to displace em-
ployees at small outlying points by the exercise of this privilege without good
and sufficient reasons, and decides in this particular dispute that the carrier was
not justified in displacing this boilermaker, the only mechanic employed at the
point in question, and that he should be reinstated to his former position with
seniority rights unimpaired; but in view of his declination of employment at
another point he shall only be reimbursed to the extent that he would have
suffered a wage loss, if any, on the basis of what he would have earned in the
position offered, as compared with what he would have earned on his regular
position. MP-ShopCrafts. Decision No. 409.
Question as to proper compensation for three employees temporarily as-
signed to perform telegraph line work occasioned by storm. These employees
were compensated under Rule 15 of the National Shop Agreement, while
employees claim they should have been paid in accordance with Rule 10 of
the agreement. Decision-The service in question should have been compen-
sated for under Rule 10 of the agreement; therefore, the employees in question
should be reimbursed to the extent of the difference between the amount that
they would have earned under the provisions of Rule 10 as compared with
their actual compensation under Rule 15. SP-ShCrfts. Decision No. 423.
Request for the continuation of the national agreement in accordance with
ruling extending Decision No. 2 to cover Pullman Company. Decision-Board
understands that subsequent to filing this dispute an agreement has been nego-
tiated and consummated and that further negotiations will be conducted with
a view to disposing of this dispute. In view of this fact the case is considered
closed without prejudice to the right of either party in making further sub-
mission in connection therewith if it so desires. PullmanCo-ShCrfts. De-
cision No. 427.
Dispute in regard to alleged violation of Rules 39 and 49 of the National
Shop Agreement-no facts given. Decision-Board understands that subse-
quent to filing this dispute an agreement has been negotiated and consummated
and that further negotiations will be conducted with a view to disposing of
this dispute. In view of this fact the case is considered closed without preju-
132
dice to the right of either party in making further submission in connection
therewith if it so desires. PullmanCo-ShCrfts. Decision No. 429.
Dispute in regard to dismissal of car cleaner account alleged violation of
rules 27 and 37 of the national shop agreement-no facts given. Decision—
Board understands that subsequent to filing this dispute an agreement has been
negotiated and consummated and that further negotiations will be conducted
with a view to disposing of this dispute. In view of this fact the case is
considered closed without prejudice to the right of either party in making
further submission in connection therewith if it so desires. Pullman Co-
ShCrfs. Decisions Nos. 430, 451, and 453.
Dispute in regard to alleged violation of national agreement in closing
shops at certain point on February 2, 1920, and refusal to recognize committee-
no facts given. Decision-Board understands that subsequent to filing this
dispute an agreement has been negotiated and consummated and that further
negotiations will be conducted with a view to disposing of this dispute. In
view of this fact the case is considered closed without prejudice to the right
of either party in making further submission in connection therewith if it so
desires. PullmanCo-ShCrfs. Decision No. 432.
Dispute in regard to alleged violation of rules 1, 27 and 36 of the national
agreement by closing repair shops at noon on certain date-no facts stated.
Decision-Board understands that subsequent to filing this dispute an agree-
ment has been negotiated and consummated and that further negotiations will
be conducted with a view to disposing of this dispute. In view of this fact,
the case is considered closed without prejudice to the right of either party in
making further submission in connection therewith if it so desires. PullmanCo.
-ShCrfs. Decision No. 437.
Dispute in regard to correct overtime rate in accordance with rule 7 of the
national agreement affecting overtime worked by employees in trimming de-
partment in certain shops-no facts stated. Decision-Board understands that
subsequent to filing this dispute an agreement has been negotiated and con-
summated and that further negotiations will be conducted with a view to dis-
posing of this dispute. In view of this fact the case is considered closed with-
out prejudice to the right of either party in making further submission in
connection therewith if it so desires. Pullman Co-ShCrfs. Decision No. 447.
Question as to proper application of Addendum 2 to Decision No. 119 to
pump repairers compensated on a monthly basis. Evidence indicates that prior
to Federal control these pump repairers were paid monthly rates covering all
service rendered, and received no payment for overtime. In accordance with
rulings of the Railroad Administration these employees were included in the
national agreement covering shop crafts and under rule 15 thereof their
monthly rate was predicated upon 3156 hours per year. After the issuance of
Addendum 2 to Decision No. 119 the employees were notified that their pay
would be reduced, the new rate being predicated upon 2920 hours per year (8
hours multiplied by 365 days). The management contends that these men were
paid no overtime prior to Federal control and Addendum 2 to Decision No. 199
has, therefore, been properly applied. Decision-Board decides that Inter-
pretation No. 1 to Addendum 2 to Decision No. 119 covers the question in dis-
pute. N&W-ShCrfs. Decision No. 541.
Question as to proper application of Addendum 2 to Decision No. 119 to con-
veyor-car operators, elevator operators, car-dumper operators, steam power-
house operators, performing work in connection with the operation of coal
pier. Prior to Federal control these employees were compensated on a monthly
basis and received no additional payment for overtime on Sunday and holiday
service. In accordance with rulings of Railroad Administration and the na-
tional shop agreement these employees were given the same overtime condi-
tions as shop employees, which method of payment continued in effect until
the issuance of Addendum 2 to Decision No. 119 when the railroad management
started the practice of paying these employees pro rata rate for all overtime
in excess of the established hours of service including work performed on
Sundays and holidays. Decision-Board decides that Interpretation 1 to Ad-
dendum 2 to Decision No. 119 covers the question in dispute. N&W-ShCrfs.
Decision No. 542.
133
Question as to whether an employee engaged exclusively in the operation
of an electric crane of less than 40-tons capacity shall be classified and rated
in accordance with rule 141 of the national shop agreement. Decision-Yes,
to the effective date of reclassification established by Addendum 6 to De-
cision No. 222. Sou Pac-ShCrfs. Decision No. 580.
Question as to whether under Addendum 2 to Decision No. 119 rule 7 of the
national shop agreement providing for payment of minimum of 5 hours for
any overtime after ninth hour of continuous service should continue in effect
or whether the rule in effect prior to Federal control, which provided for
payment of any overtime after the basic day at rate of time and one half
except for first 40 minutes or less for which one hour was allowed, should
apply. Decision—Addendum No. 2 to Decision No. 119 was not intended to
cover rule 7 of the national agreement and provisions of this rule should,
therefore, have remained in force and effect until August 16, 1921, the effective
date of Decision No. 222. N&W-ShCrfs. Decision No. 585.
Question as to whether certain employees known as division linemen should
be classified and paid as linemen or as electricians. Decision-Board decides
that the employees classified as and performing the work of linemen as per
rule 141 shall be compensated on the basis of rule 45 with the authorized sub-
sequent adjustments; employees classified as linemen and required to perform
work as per rule 140 and 141 are composite workmen and shall be paid the rate
applicable to employees specified in rule 140. If difference of opinion exists as
to actual work being performed by these employees the Board decides that
proper joint investigation shall be made by duly authorized representatives of
the carrier and the employees and rate of pay established in accordance with
this decision. UP-ShCrfs. Decision No. 712.
Claim of employee regularly assigned as shop laborer for regular boiler
washer helper's rate of pay while doing relief work as such. Employees are
claiming that when this employee is assigned to assist boiler washer in wash-
ing of locomotive boilers that section (p), Article V of the national main-
tenance of way agreement should apply. Carrier recognizes classification and
rating of boilermaker helpers as applying to employees regularly assigned to
assist boiler washer but does not construe the agreement as prohibiting the use
of shop laborers occasionally performing this class of work and takes the
position that the work of boiler washer helper is not covered by the main-
tenance of way agreement. Decision-Board decides that a laborer assigned
to perform the work of a helper coming under the provisions of the Fed-
erated Shop Crafts' agreement shall be paid as provided by that agreement.
L&N-MofW. Decision No. 779.
Question as to right of carrier under rules 46 and 27 of the national shop
agreement, to require an employee who was laid off in reduction in force to
take a physical examination and to hold him out of service account of alleged
failure to pass such examination. Decision-Board is advised by parties at
interest that dispute has been disposed of and case is, therefore, removed
from docket and file closed. CB&Q-ShCrfs. Decision No. 793.
Question as to seniority rights of certain foreman of car inspectors, whose
position was abolished, and who was assigned as car inspector on first trick,
thereby displacing the junior man thereon. Employees contend that this em-
ployee should have been assigned to whatever position was open on his craft or
displace the junior mechanic on the seniority roster of "Other carmen," as set
out in Rule 31 of the shopcrafts' agreement. Decision-Board decides that
the foreman in question is entitled to the continuity of his seniority, dating
from the time he entered the service, but that when his position was abolished
the only seniority rights he could have exercised would have been to take any
vacant position to which his seniority entitled him, or in the event of there
being no vacancies, he could displace the junior man of his craft and class,
in accordance with the subdivision set out in Rule 31. If questions arise as
to the inability of employees whose positions are abolished to perform certain
classes of work, a conference should be held between the representatives of the
interested parties in an effort to arrive at a mutual understanding regarding the
position to which the employee involved should be assigned. Rule 23 of the
agreement should also be given proper consideration if practicable. If any
134
change is made in this employee's assignment, there shall be no monetary ad-
justment account of issuance of this decision. HV-SC: Decision No.
897.
Question as to proper application of Rule 13 of the National Shop Agree-
ment to employees changing shifts where a period of lapse of service of 24
hours or over intervenes, the positions on which these employees were engaged
being abolished on Saturday, and these employees assigned to other service
starting the following Monday. Decision-Board decides upon the particular
question in dispute that the shifts to which the employees were transfered were
not maintained on Sundays, and that therefore the time intervening between
the changing of the shifts should not have operated to deprive the employees
of the overtime rate provided in Rule 13, and that they should be reimbursed
accordingly. WM-SC. Decision No. 920.
Question as to whether carrier has the right under Rule 32 of the National
Shop Agreement to require foremen of water service department to perform
work of regular mechanics, in making repairs to pumps at outlying points
where no mechanics are available. Decision-At oral hearing conducted in con-
nection with this case, both parties advised that the matter had been adjusted
satisfactorily. The docket is, therefore, closed. GRR-SC. Decision No. 921.
Question as to application of Rule 32 of the National Shop Agreement and
claim of employees for differential in rate of pay of certain mechanics. No
facts given. Decision-Board is in receipt of advice that this case has been
amicably settled, and that further action is not desired on the part of the
Board. The docket is, therefore, closed. L&N-SC. Decision No. 923.
2. Maintenance of Way.
Where painters in maintenance of way department were classified and
paid under Sup. 4 and addendum 2 thereto, which rates continued to be applied
up to effective date of Decision 2 of Labor Board when management con-
sidered it had erred in applying Sup. 4 to these employees and endeavored to
correct the error by applying the increase provided by Decision 2 to rates
that would have been in effect had Sup. 8 been applied, claim is made that
the work performed by these MofW painters should be classified and paid
under the Shop Craft Agreement. Decision (a) Employees in question do not
come under National Shop Agreement and not proper to classify and pay
them under said agreement-(b) Increase of 15c specified in Decision 2 for
MofW mechanics to be added to rates in effect 12:01 a. m., March 1, 1920.
DL&W-Mof W. Decision No. 92.
Claim that position of night oil house man at certain point comes within
scope of National M. of Way Agreement and that overtime worked by the
occupant of that position should be paid for under Sections (a-1) and (a-8)
Art. V, of said agreement. Claim denied. MC-MofW. Decision No. 88.
Question as to whether overtime for extra-gang foremen shall be paid for
under the provisions of Section (a-7) or Section (a-8) of Art. V. of National
M. of W. Agreement. Decision-Gang foremen in question properly come
under and shall be paid in accordance with Section (a-7) of Art. V. NOT&
M-MofW. Decision No. 180.
Question as to whether employees sent out from headquarters to do work
without outfit cars are entitled to continuous time until return to assembling
point, including all time traveling and waiting. Decision-No; payment should
be made in accord with Sec. (i), Art. V, National M. of W. Agreement.
MC-MofW. Decision No. 208.
Where foremen, while not required to report for duty on Sundays, are re-
quired to keep their whereabouts known to their superior officer and respond
promptly when called, claim is made that as they were required to remain in
their respective territories on Sundays subject to call they should receive pay
therefor. Decision-Claim denied. BR&P-MofW. Decision No. 210.
Question whether monthly rated foremen should be allowed overtime for
services rendered on Sundays and holidays, in addition to their regular monthly
salary. Decision-Claim of employees denied. MP-MofW. Decision No.
209. Vir. Decision No. 233. UP-Decision No. 330. IC-Decision No. 547.
Claim of foreman for compensation during period from December 19th to
135
January 3rd when extra gang over which he had charge was laid off. Em-
ployees call attention to rules (c-2) and (f) of Article II of National MofW
Agreement, contending that the foreman was not instructed regarding his duties
during period referred to and as he was employed by the month and had not
asked for leave of absence he was still subject to instructions of the road-
master who should have issued instructions for his retention and guidance dur-
ing time extra force was laid off. Decision-Rules quoted in employees' posi-
tion expressly provide for retention of senior men in case of force reduction
or temporary assignment; however, it does not appear from evidence that the
employee in question made the proper effort to take advantage of these pro-
visions, and claim for compensation for period laid off is therefore denied.
N&W-MofW. Decision No. 231.
Question as to number of days constituting a basic year for employees
covered by national maintenance of ways agreement-employees contending
that decision of Board of Adjustment No. 3 placed all monthly-rated em-
ployees under Section (e) of the national agreement, and Int. 1 to Decision No.
2 of Labor Board sustains the claim, as the increase for all monthly-rated
employees was figured on basis of 306 days per year; therefore, the hourly
rate for all monthly-rated employees covered by national agreement should be
computed by multiplying 306 by 8 and dividing the annual salary by the total
hours. Decision-Employees' contention denied. C&NW-MofW-Decision
No. 232.
Claim that certain mechanics in the B&B departments who are sent out
from regular headquarters and required to work, wait or travel as regulated
by train service, should be paid straight time for all time traveling and wait-
ing in accordance with Section (m), Article V, of the national Mof W agree-
ment. Decision-Employees in question are properly compensated in accord-
ance with Section (i) of the national agreement. CCC&StL-MofW. De-
cision No. 249.
Where section foreman, in connection with other duties, is required to
supervise coal chute operations, claim is made that under Section (p), Article
V, of national MofW agreement, such employe is a composite worker and
entitled to rate of pay applicable to coal house foremen. Decision-Claim de-
nied; preponderating work of the foreman in question is that of section fore-
man, and in accordance with Section (p), of Article V, should be classified
and paid as such. C&NW-MofW. Decision No. 250.
Request for reclassification and rating of pumper now classified and paid
under Section (a-12), Article V, National Maintenance of Way Agreement,
whose position it is claimed requires continuous alertness and application and
should be excepted from the application of Section (a-12) in accordance with
the last paragraph thereof, and be classified in a supervisory capacity and paid
accordingly. Decision-Claim denied. MP-MofW. Decision No. 255.
Question as to seniority standing of section foreman promoted to road-
master and subsequently demoted. Carrier permitted him to return to his
former position of section foreman, displacing employee filling said position.
Employees contend that in accepting promotion the employee involved for-
feited his rights as section foreman after thirty days in accordance with Sec-
tion (e), Article III, of national agreement, and in re-entering work as fore-
man should be considered as new man and entitled only to such position as
may be open. Decision (a) that appointment to position of roadmaster did
not constitute a temporary appointment; (b) that the continuity of service
with carrier was not disturbed by said appointment; (c) that employee involved
is entitled to position of section foreman by displacing junior section foreman;
and (d) that employee holding the position of section foreman formerly
held by the promoted man is entitled to retain said position provided he is not
the junior man on the seniority district. SP-MofW. Decision No. 289.
Claim that certain employees are performing the same class of work as
cinder-pit men and should be so classified and rated. Decision-Board decides
(a) at points where there is a sufficient amount of such work to occupy the
time of one or more men, such men (or man) shall be paid the rate and
receive the overtime conditions established for ash-pit men; (b) this decision
shall be effective November 1, 1921; (c) decision not to be construed to mean
136
that section laborers or other laborers employed in or around shops or yards,
who are required among their other duties to remove cinders from tracks,
shall come under its provisions; (d) decision is based on particular facts in
this case. NC&StL-MofW. Decision No. 300.
Question as to right of carrier to lay off carpenter gangs and contract for
building of new depot by a construction company, employees contending that
the national agreement covers all bridge and building work; that these car-
penters are employed for and assigned to that particular kind of work; that
they have seniority rights to this work over any construction company, and that
they should, therefore, be paid their regular salaries for length of time depot
was under construction. Decision-Board decides carrier did not violate the
provisions of the agreement, and claim is, therefore, denied. This decision
applicable only to case in question. M&O-MofW. Decision No. 328.
Where carrier, for purpose of reducing expenses, laid off certain junior
laborers and carpenters and certain other entire gangs, also reduced the num-
ber of days worked by other gangs and foremen one and two days per week,
employees contend that such method was contrary to Section (1), Article V of
the national agreement, and claim that men affected should be compensated
for all time lost. Decision-Board decides carrier did not violate provisions
of agreement in making reductions outlined, and claim for time lost is, there-
fore, denied. However, when it becomes necessary to reduce expenses the
Board suggests that conference be held in effort to work out a method of re-
duction that will be mutually agreeable to both parties. CI&W-MofW. De-
cision No. 334.
During winter months it is necessary to place watchman to keep from
freezing boiler of ditching machine located at certain point. In former years
this watchman was provided by the engineering department, but this year the
duties of the watchman were added to those performed by a mechanical de-
partment employee in charge of air compresser at same point. Employees con-
tend that positions of engine watchmen come within jurisdiction of maintenance
of way national agreement, and that derrick engineers and firemen in the
maintainence of ways department have right to positions of engine watchmen
on ditching or hoisting engines, and claim is made for time lost by engineer who
was denied rights to said position. Decision-Claim denied. BR&P-MofW.
Decision No. 335.
Question as to right of B&B foreman promoted to general foreman, upon
his position of general foreman being abolished, to return to his former posi-
tion of B&B foreman displacing employee assigned to said position. Carrier
holds that when said employee was promoted to general foreman it was
agreed that he would not thereby lose his seniority rights and that in event
of force reduction he would be entitled to return to his former position or to
any other position to which his seniority entitled him. Decision-Board decides
(a) appointment to position of general foreman did not constitute temporary
appointment; (b) continuity of employee's service with carrier was not dis-
turbed by said appointment; (c) employee is entitled to displace the junior
B&B foreman in point of service as provided for in Sec. (e), Art. III of the
National Agreement; (d) employee filling position formerly held by general
foreman is entitled to retain said position provided he is not the junior B&B
foreman on the seniority district. T&BV-MofW. Decision No. 339.
Where position of night derrick engineer was abolished and employee fill-
ing said position assigned as laborer (position he formerly occupied), claim
is made that under Section (a), Article III of national agreement said em-
ployee should be permitted to displace a junior day derrick engineer at same
point. Decision-Claim denied. SPLines-MofW. Decision No. 340.
Question as to whether under rules of the national agreement a man's
seniority begins anew upon each promotion or whether it is accumulative,
beginning with date of original employment in the sub-department to which
he is attached. Specific case in question is that of extra gang foreman whose
position was abolished and who made claim for right to displace a section
foreman junior in service to him as foreman but whose unbroken service in
the sub-department antedated that of the claimant, and which was denied by
carrier. Later, however, carrier agreed to handle matter as committee de-
137
sired, provided it would not be penalized thereby, but committee insisted on
payment of back time for full time employee in question was out of service.
Decision-Contention of employee is denied. L&N-MofW. Decision No. 354.
Where certain section laborers were called to wreck on Sunday and worked
thereat from 8 a. m. until 6 p. m., for which they were compensated at pro
rata rate for first 8 hours and time and one-half rate for remainder of time
on duty, claim is made that employees in question are entitled to punitive
overtime for all services rendered on Sundays under latter paragraph of Sec-
tion (a-5) and also Section (a-6), Article V of the national agreement.
Decision-Claim of employees is denied. MoPac-MofW. Decision No. 355.
Dispute in regard to proper classification and rating of hoisting engineers
who are engaged in transferring cars over an inclined plane and performing
other services in connection therewith, employees contending that these hoist-
ing engineers perform mechanics' work and should be paid the mechanics' rate
in accordance with Supplement 4 to G. O. 27 and the National Shop Agree-
ment, and under Decision No. 2 should have been increased 15c per hour.
Carrier states that the question now in dispute was submitted to Railway
Board of Adjustment No. 2, which Board in its Decision No. 1058 sustained
the decision of the carrier in its method of classifying and rating these em-
ployees as stationary engineers and that in view of this fact it is not a proper
submission to the U. S. Railroad Labor Board for decision. Decision-Deci-
sion No. 2 provides that increases specified therein shall be added to the rate
of pay established by or under the authority of the U. S. Railroad Adminis-
tration. Therefore, in view of the fact that decision rendered by Board of
Adjustment No. 2, an authorized representative of the U. S. Railroad Ad-
ministration, sustained the carrier in its classification and rating of these
positions, the Board decides that Decision No. 2 has been properly applied and
denies claim of the employees for reclassification and rating. Central RRof NJ
-MofW. Decision No. 397.
Question as to whether certain specified positions of crossing watchmen shall
be excepted from the provisions of Section (a-12), Article V of the National
Maintenance of Way Agreement. Decision-After reviewing the evidence sub-
mitted it is the opinion of the Board that the position of the carrier wherein it
is claimed that none of the positions should be excepted, is not justified, neither
is the claim of the employees that all crossings should be excepted justified, and
the Board decides that a further conference should be held with the duly author-
ized representatives of the respective parties with view to complying with
the last paragraph of section (a-12), Article V at which time the employees
should confine their case to specified crossings or positions which it believes
merit consideration. The rates established by the carrier in 1917 should have
no bearing on the questions at issue and carrier should consider the case on
basis of conditions existing at present. DL&W-MofW. Decision No. 406.
Question as to whether carrier has the right in reducing force to lay off
certain section laborers and retain other employees of this class who are
junior in the service. In making a reduction in force of 50 men on a certain
section the carrier laid off 10 section laborers who held seniority rights over
certain other employees who were retained in the service, and the employees
claim that the carrier in taking this action has violated the provisions of section
3 (c), Article II of the National Maintenance of Way Agreement. Carrier
takes position that this section of Article II gives them the right to retain
employees capable of performing the work and that the men involved were
members of extra gangs who had been put on to take care of emergency work
and whose services were not satisfactory. Decision-The employees offered
no evidence in refutation of the carrier's statement that the services of the
employees in question were unsatisfactory, and therefore, based upon the
evidence before it the Board decides that the carrier was within its rights in
reducing the forces in the manner outlined. SPLines-Mof W. Decision No.
408.
Question as to whether supervisory employees covered by the provisions
of Section 8, Article V of the National Maintenance of Way Agreement shall be
allowed overtime for service performed after 8 hours, such as making up pay-
rolls, time books, material reports, accident reports or any other reports these
138
employees are called upon to make after 8 hours have been worked. Decision-
Employees in question, in accordance with the rule referred to, are not entitled
to overtime for the performance of services mentioned. Penn-MofW. De-
cision No. 411.
Question as to whether Section 1, Article V, of the National Maintenance
of Way Agreement was violated when working days were reduced to five per
week after extensive reduction in force had been made. Employees contend
that rule referred to was violated in reducing number of days per week and
employees involved should be paid for all time so laid off. Decision-Board
decides that carrier did not violate the meaning and intent of Section 1,
Article V of the agreement, and therefore denies the claim for payment
account of reduction in the days per week as outlined. Cenof NJ-MofW.
Decision No. 519.
Question as to right of pumper filling second shift at certain point tɔ
exercise his seniority rights to first shift position when the second shift posi-
tion was abolished. This pumper, although holding seniority over the first-
trick man, was denied the right to displace first-trick pumper, but not denied
the right to displace pumper with the least seniority rights in the seniority
district in question. Subsequently, in disposing of this grievance the manage-
ment reached agreement with the organization that the last sentence of
Section (e), Article II, of the National Maintenance of Way Agreement
would apply to pumpers, it being the understanding that said agreement would
establish a precedent for handling future cases, and carrier declined to honor
claim for actual wage loss to the second-trick pumper from the time his trick
was cut off until he was placed upon the first trick. Employees are now con-
tending that under Section (c-2) of Article II of the agreement that this
pumper should have been placed on the first-trick position, and therefore claim
that he is entitled to time lost. Decision-Claim denied. N&W-MofW.
Decision No. 521.
Question as to seniority rights of certain track laborers in service less than
six months, who were laid off account reduction in force and were not allowed
to displace other laborers junior to them in the service. Carrier takes the
position that under Section (h), Article II, of the National Maintenance of
Way Agreement these laborers having been in the service less than six months
were not under the provisions of the agreement nor entitled to any seniority
rights and it was entirely within its rights in displacing these laborers when
reducing its force. Employees contend that their understanding of Section (h)
is that the names of employees will not appear on the roster until six months'
service, but that does not affect their seniority rights in the service and that
any employees in service should receive their seniority rights in accordance
with Section (d-1), Article II of the agreement. Decision-While the Board
feels that the principles of seniority should be adhered to as closely as possible
when reducing forces, it does not construe the provisions of the agreement as
making it compulsory on the carrier to regard seniority of employees in ques-
tion until they have been in the service six months, and claim of employees is
therefore denied. BR&P-MofW. Decision No. 523.
Question as to what constitutes "isolated point" as applied to engine watch-
men referred to in Section (a-12), Article V, of the National Maintenance
of Way Agreement. Decision-Board decides that fair definition of the lan-
guage "engine watchmen at isolated point" as incorporated in Section (a-12),
Article V of the agreement, would be: Engine watchmen at isolated points
are those located at other than division terminals, where there is no super-
vision and where maintenance work is not performed on locomotives, except
engine watchmen at such points whose duties, connected with taking care of
engines, such as knocking and building fires, and service of like character,
consume more than 50 per cent of their time on duty, in which latter case they
should be excluded from the provisions of section and article referred to.
C&NW-MofW. Decision No. 524.
Question as to whether section foremen who are paid a monthly rate on a
313-day basis shall be allowed extra compensation for work performed on
holidays, employees claiming that under Section (e), Article V, of National
Maintenance of Way Agreement, the number of working days constituting a
139
working year are 306 days for foremen, and that under Section (a-5) of
Article V when foremen are required to work on Sundays or any of the seven
specified holidays they should be paid at the pro rata hourly rate in addition
to their monthly rate. Carrier states that when the national agreement became
effective the 313-day basis was established for section foremen and they were
allowed extra pay for Sunday work, other than such work as making out
reports, posting time books, attending staff meetings and similar duties not
directly connected with the actual work of their gangs, and that this basis.
has been continued. Decision-Claim of employees denied. SouPac-MofW.
Decision No. 546.
Shall pumpers and similar classes of employees paid under provisions
of Section (a-12) of Article V of the National Maintenance of Way Agree-
ment be paid overtime under provisions of Section (a-7) and (a-8) and for
calls under provisions of Sections (a-9), (a-10) and (a-11) of said agreement.
Decision-No. This not to include positions excepted in last paragraph of
Section (a-12) of Article V. IllCen-MofW. Decision No. 548.
Claim that basis of payment for track watchmen on one division should
be changed from a monthly to an hourly basis to conform to basis of pay-
ment applying to certain track walkers on another division of the same rail-
road whose services are similar. Carrier takes the position that Section
(a-12), Article V of the National Agreement provides a monthly rate for
employees engaged in such service. Decision-Based upon evidence sub-
mitted and Board's interpretation of Section (a-12), Article V of the Na-
tional Agreement position of carrier is sustained. CenRRofNJ-MofW.
Decision No. 589.
Question as to whether certain supervisory foremen in the Maintenance of
Way service should receive extra compensation when required to supervise
their gangs on Sundays and holidays. Decision-Board sustains position
of carrier in the manner in which Section (h) of Article V of the National
Maintenance of Way Agreement has been applied up to the effective date
of Addendum 2 to Decision No. 119 (July 1, 1921), from which date Adden-
dum 2 or any agreement that may have been subsequently entered into
shall be made applicable. In event that no agreement has been reached
Section (h), Article V of Decision No. 501, effective December 16, 1921,
shall apply in the manner provided therein. For all service considered
as overtime for which extra compensation is provided the hourly rate of
pay for such service shall be predicated upon 204 hours per month in accord-
ance with Section (e), Article V of Decision No. 501, regardless of the
hours or days that may be considered as the regular assignment of monthly
rated supervisory forces. T&P-MofW. Decision No. 593.
Dispute in regard to seniority rights of employee promoted from section
foreman to assistant roadmaster, serving in that capacity for period of 5
years when due to reduction in force his position of assistant roadmaster
was abolished and he was permitted to displace a section foreman. Em-
ployees claim that as assistant roadmaster, this employee was an official of
the carrier and, therefore, had no seniority rights that would permit him to
displace a foreman, and call attention to Article I of the National Main-
tenance of Way Agreement and also to paragraph (c-1), Article II of said
agreement. Decision-Board decides (a) that appointment of this employee
to position of assistant roadmaster did not constitute a temporary appoint-
ment; (b) that the continuity of this employee's seniority with the carrier
was not disturbed by said appointment; (c) that this employee as a result
of being demoted is entitled to a position of section foreman by displacing
the junior section foreman as provided in Section (e), Article II of the
agreement; (d) that the section foreman displaced is entitled to return to
his position of section foreman provided he is not the junior section foreman
on the seniority district as provided in Section (e), Article II of the agree-
ment. MichCen-MofW. Decision No. 594.
Question as to proper application of Section (a-7), Article V of the
National Maintenance of Way Agreement, the carrier in question making
no distinction between temporary and permanent gangs, paying all alike—
pro rata rates for the ninth and tenth hours. Decision-Board calls atten-
140
tion to Decision No. 501 and decides that the provisions thereof shall apply
to the dispute in question. L&NE-MofW. Decision No. 600.
Question as to whether labor foremen in shops and shopyards, who super-
vise laborers, are covered by the National Maintenance of Way Agreement.
Case withdrawn by employees and file closed. IllCen-MofW. Decision No.
604.
Claim of certain B. & B. employees for compensation under Section (f),
Article V of National Maintenance of Way Agreement, for deadheading
from their home to point of employment after having spent Sunday at their
home point. Decision-Board does not understand that the spirit and intent
of the Transportation Act has been complied with in handling of this dis-
pute, and, therefore, remands the case and directs that the spirit and intent
of the labor provisions of the act be given proper consideration by the parties
to this dispute. Upon evidence that this has been done and no agreement
reached the Board will render its decision. C&NW-MofW. Decision No.
650.
Claim of roustabout carpenter for pay for travel time under Section (m),
Article V of the National Maintenance of Way Agreement. Carrier con-
tends that this employee has been properly paid under Section (i), Article
V of the agreement in question. Decision-Position of carrier sustained.
L&N-MofW. Decision No. 647.
Question as to whether it is permissible to assign coal chute foreman to
work a less number of hours or days than laborers supervised. During
a certain period the laborers in this foreman's crew were required to work
10 hours per day and also on Sundays and holidays, while the foreman was
assigned to work only 9 hours with no Sunday or holiday work, and employees
contend that Section (a), Article XI of Supplement 8 to G. O. 27 has not
been complied with. Decision-Board cannot find that carrier has violated
any rule or agreement in handling this matter and accordingly sustains the
carrier's position. C&NW-MofW. Decision No. 713.
Dispute in regard to proper rate of pay of certain engine watchman. Em-
ployees claim that this engine watchman worked 12 hours each night 365 nights
per year, also that he worked 12 hours each Sunday 52 Sundays per year,
equaling a total of 5004 hours; further that Supplement 7 to G. O. 27 pro-
vided that this class of employees be paid time and one-half after 10 hours
each day. On the basis of straight time payment for 10 hours 365 days per
year, 2 hours overtime for 365 days, plus 12 hours overtime for 52 Sundays,
a total of 5681 hours is produced which is the number of hours that should
be used in determining the monthly rate under the provisions of Section (a-12),
Article V of the National Maintenance of Way Agreement, which method
produces a higher monthly_rate under the provisions of Decision No. 2 than
that allowed by carrier. Decision-Board decides that it was the intent of
Section (a-12), Article V of the National Maintenance of Way Agreement
that the monthly rate provided therein for hourly rated employees should be
predicated upon the hours constituting the employees' assignment for which
payment was allowed when rated on the hourly basis. C&A-MofW. De-
cision No. 714.
Question as to proper method of compensating certain stationary engineers
who were formerly paid on a daily basis and are now being paid on a monthly
basis covering a 365-day assignment. Employees contend that the method
arrived at in establishing the monthly rate is correct, but believe that car-
rier should have put this monthly rate on a 306-day basis, instead of 365,
when the National Maintenance of Way Agreement went into effect, in ac-
cordance with Section (e), Article V of said agreement. Decision-Claim
of employees denied. C&S-MofW. Decision No. 717.
Question as to whether pumper, paid on a monthly rate under Section
(a-12), Article V of the National Maintenance of Way Agreement based on
a 10-hour assignment per day should be paid overtime at rate of time and
one-half for service performed in excess of his regular assignment. Carrier
holds that the monthly rate arrived at under the rule referred to compensates
this employee for all service rendered. Decision-Evidence presented in this
case does not indicate that the duties of the position in question are such as to
141
place same on an hourly basis in accordance with the exception contained in
the last paragraph of Section (a-12), Article V, and contention of carrier
is, therefore, sustained. AT&SF-MofW. Decision No. 769.
Question as to right of carrier to lay off entire force of laborers and their
gang leaders in the stores supply department on Saturday of each week in
order to curtail expenses. Employees contend that carrier has no right to lay
off the entire force one day each week when the proper reduction in expense
can be accomplished by first laying off the junior men in the gangs, citing
Section 1, Article V of the national agreement in support of their contention,
and claiming that the men in question are entitled to pay for each and every
Saturday lost account of said reduction. Decision-Board decides that car-
rier did not violate the meaning and intent of Section 1, Article V, and de-
nies payment account reduction in the days per week as outlined. CI&L-
MofW. Decision No. 771.
Question as to whether foremen and laborers at coal chutes should be
covered by the National Maintenance of Way Agreement. Decision-While
the National Maintenance of Way Agreement did not specifically mention
foremen and laborers at coal chutes, the information in possession of the
Board is to effect that practically all carriers recognized and applied that agree-
ment to this class of employees. Therefore, the Board decides that foremen
and laborers at coal chutes should have been considered as coming under the
provisions of the agreement referred to. The word "foremen" as used herein
is intended to refer to foremen in charge of laborers and not foremen in
charge of mechanics, or others holding responsible supervisory positions at
large coaling plants. IC-MofW. Decision No. 777.
Claim of employee regularly assigned as shop laborer for regular boiler-
washer helper's rate of pay while doing relief work as such. Employees are
claiming that when this employee is assigned to assist boiler washer in washing
of locomotive boilers that Section (p), Article V of the National Main-
tenance of Way Agreement should apply. Carrier recognizes classification
and rating of boilermaker helpers as applying to employees regularly assigned
to assist boiler washer but does not construe the agreement as prohibiting the
use of shop laborers occasionally performing this class of work and takes the
position that the work of boiler washer helper is not covered by the main-
tenance of way agreement. Decision-Board decides that a laborer assigned
to perform the work of a helper coming under the provisions of the Fed-
erated Shop Crafts' Agreement shall be paid as provided by that agreement.
L&N-MofW.. Decision No. 779.
4
Question as to whether traveling labor gang in water service department
shall be compensated under Section (i) or Section (n), Article V of the
National Maintenance of Way Agreement. Evidence indicates that there is
employed by the carrier in question a traveling road gang whose duties are to
look after pipe lines and water flue installations, laying new lines, changing
and renewing or relocating old lines, excavating foundations, mixing concrete
and other laborers' work. The gang is in charge of a pump repairer who re-
ceives instructions from the water service foreman regarding work to be done
by the gang. This gang moves from place to place as the work requires and
has no established headquarters or boarding outfit, except in some cases where
there is heavy work to be done necessitating a long stay at some outfit point
where accommodations are not available, in which event outfit cars are fur-
nished. Carrier holds that the work of the gang in question is essentially
road service of the character that was intended to be covered by Section (i),
Article V and that these men are properly compensated under said section
and article. Decision-Board decides that service in question comes within
the meaning and intent of Section (i), Article V of the national agreement
and position of carrier is, therefore, sustained. SouP-MofW. Decision
No. 794.
Claim of engine watchman for adjustment in rate of pay in accordance
with Section 8, Article III of Decision No. 2. Employees claim that the
point in question is not an isolated point as referred to in Section (a-12),
Article V of the National Maintenance of Way Agreement, and further that
if such point is an isolated point, then the monthly rate should have been
142
determined by applying the provisions of Section (a-12) to the hourly rate
established in accordance with Section 8, Article III of Decision No. 2.
Decision-It is decided that Decision No. 524 of the Labor Board shall be
followed in determining whether or not the point in question shall be con-
sidered an "isolated point." If it is proper to consider such point an isolated
point, the Board decides that the carrier was justified in establishing a monthly
rate for the position in question. The monthly rate, however, should have
been predicated upon the rate of pay and assignment in effect at the time such
change was made. If Section (a-12), Article V of the agreement does not
apply, the hourly rate shall be re-established on the basis of what the hourly
rate should have been had the monthly rate not been established, making
necessary allowance for all subsequent adjustments that have been made by
decision of the Board. Adjustment in compensation not to be made retroactive
beyond July 1, 1921. C&NW-MofW. Decision No. 806.
Question as to whether certain crossing watchman, paid a monthly rate un-
der Section (a-12), Article V of the National Maintenance of Way Agreement,
should be paid overtime at pro rata rate for ninth and tenth hour, and time
and one-half thereafter for all time worked in excess of his regular monthly
assignment. On certain days, this watchman was required to serve three
hours in addition to his assignment, for which service he was not paid an
amount, in addition to his regular salary, covering his regular monthly as-
signment. Decision-Section (a-12) of Article V provided for the estab-
lishment of a monthly rate to cover all services rendered, and further pro-
vided that if the present assigned hours were increased or decreased, the
monthly rate should be adjusted. The Board does not construe the language
of this rule to prohibit the temporary assignment of employees, covered
thereby, to longer hours in case of emergency-this condition apparently hav-
ing been recognized when the rule was written. The position of the manage-
ment in connection with this case is, therefore, sustained, but this decision
should not be construed to permit the assignment of employees, covered by
the above rule, to longer hours for any considerable period of time without
the payment of overtime therefor, and in no case unless an emergency exists.
AT&SF-MofW. Decision No. 808.
Claim of certain track laborer for assignment to position of section fore-
man, which he filled temporarily while position was being advertised for bids,
which position was awarded to a former employee on the ground that the only
bidder on the position was incompetent to fill same. Carrier takes position
that the track laborer in question did not bid on the position of foreman when
the job was advertised, and, therefore, the management was under no obliga-
tion to continue him in the position which he was filling temporarily pending
closing of the bids. He was considered competent to fill the position tempo-
rarily, but did not have sufficient experience or ability to hold the position dur-
ing the time that the regular foreman would be away. Furthermore, this
track laborer, at the time the matter came up, had been employed only seven
weeks and three days and was not entitled to exercise seniority rights to the
position in question. Decision-In view of the fact that this employee was
credited with less than six months' service record, the Board is of the opinion
that, in view of the language of Section (h), Article II of the agreement,
that the question of seniority has no bearing in this case. The Board cannot
find that the management has violated the rules of the agreement in this
particular case, and the claim of the employees is, therefore, denied. BR&P—
MofW. Decision No. 809.
•
Where roadway gang was laid off one day per week for certain period,
claim is made by foreman who supervised this gang, and who was paid on
a monthly basis, for time, deducted from his pay on the days on which the
gang was laid off. Decision- (a) If foreman is compensated on a monthly
basis for all services rendered, not including the accepted services provided for
in Section (h) of Article V, including time worked in excess of the regular
hours or day's assignment for the general force, it is clearly the intent of
Section (h) that such foreman would receive not less than the monthly rate so
established, provided he was ready and available to perform the service re-
quired; (b) if foreman is compensated on a monthly basis and was paid over-
143
time for work performed after 8 hours and all work performed on Sundays
and holidays, no valid claim can be made for time lost under the provisions of
Section (h), Article V, of the agreement. BR&P-MofW. Decision No.
896.
Claim of certain engine watchmen for hourly basis of payment and back
pay from March 1, 1921. On March 1, 1920, these employees were compen-
sated at an hourly rate, which hourly rate was increased ten cents per hour
in accordance with Section 8, Article III of Decision No. 2. Effective March
1, 1921, rates of pay of these employees were established at a monthly rate
in accordance with Section (a-12), Article V, of the National Maintenance
of Way Agreement, on the basis of the hourly rate in effect March 1, 1920,
plus increase of $20.40 per month as provided in Decision 2. Employees
contend that the term "Isolated point" should not apply to the point in question,
and that these employees should be continued on an hourly basis. De-
cision-The Board in its Decision No. 524, gave its interpretation of Sec-
tion (a-12), Article V of the National Maintenance of Way Agreement, which
interpretation shall govern in determining whether or not the position in
question should be rated on a monthly basis. If under such interpretation
the position should be rated on an hourly basis, proper adjustment shall be
made for the period subsequent to March 1, 1921, account having been paid
on a monthly rated basis. C&NW_MofW. Decision No. 897.
•
Claim of pumper for adjustment in rate of pay based on provisions of Sec-
tion 7, Article III of Decision No. 2. On March 1, 1920, this employee
was receiving an hourly rate of pay, which rate was increased under Section
7. Article III of Decision No. 2. On November 1, 1920, under Section
(a-12), Article V of the Maintenance of Way Agreement, a monthly rate
was established on the basis of the hourly rate in effect prior to May 1, 1920,
(the effective date of Decision 2) plus $20.40, as provided in Decision No. 2,
for monthly rated employees. Employees claim that the monthly rate should
have been determined by applying the provision of Section (a-12), Article
V of the agreement, to the hourly rate established in accordnace with Section
7, Article III of Decision No. 2. Decision-Board decides that the carrier was
justified in establishing a monthly rate for the employee in question in accord-
ance with Section (a-12) of Article V, but that such monthly rate should
have been predicated upon the hourly rate and assignment in effect at the
time such change was made, and the employee in question shall be reim-
bursed to the extent he has suffered a wage loss account the improper appli-
cation for the period from July 1, 1921, until the proper adjustment is
made. C&NW-MofW. Decision No 898.
Dispute concerning establishment of monthly rate of pay for certain en-
gine watchman. On March 1, 1920, this employee was receiving an hourly
rate of pay, which rate was increased in accordance with Section 8, Article
III of Decision No. 2. On March 15, 1920, under Section (a-12), Article V
of the Maintenance of Way Agreement, a monthly rate was established
on the basis of the hourly rate in effect prior to May 1, 1920, (the effective
date of Decision No. 2) plus $20.40, as provided in Decision No. 2, for
monthly rated employees. Employees claim that the monthly rate should have
heen determined by applying the provisions of Section (a-12) of Article
V of the agreement, to the hourly rate established in accordance with Section
8. Article III of Decision No. 2. Decision-Board decides that the carrier
was justified in establishing a monthly rate for the employee in question
in accordance with Section (a-12) of Article V, but that such monthly rate
should have been predicated upon the hourly rate and assignment in effect at
the time such change was made, and the employee in question shall be reim-
bursed to the extent he has suffered a wage loss account the improper appli-
cation for the period from July 1, 1921, until the proper adjustment is
made. C&NW-MofW. Decision No. 899.
3. Clerks.
Claim that Chattanooga, Tennessee, does not come within the class of
"larger stations" as referred to in Paragraph (b) under Title "Exceptions,"
Rule 1, Art. I, Clerks' National Agreement, and that position of Chief Clerk
144
to the agent at this point comes within scope of National Agreement and
should be bulletined for bid account individual increase allowed such position.
Claim denied. NC&StL-Clks. Decision No. 87.
Question whether certain baggage and express agents are employees of
railroad company and governed by provisions of Clerks' National Agreement,
or employees of Express Company and governed by Express Employees' Agree-
ment, or employees of both and governed by both agreements. Decided that
such men are employees of Express Company and should be governed by Sup.
19 to G. O. 27, Express Employees' National Agreement and Decision 3 of
Labor Board. LA&SL-Clks. Decision No. 86.
Question whether positions of shop watchmen at repair shops come within
scope of Paragraph 2, Rule 1, Art. I, Clerks' National Agreement-employees
contending term "watchmen" as used in rule referred to applies to all watch-
men except those carried as railroad policemen, and that such employees should
be paid on a daily basis of eight consecutive hours, exclusive of meal period,
with appropriate overtime rates for time worked in excess thereof and on Sun-
days and holidays. Decision-Positions referred to do not come within scope
of Clerks' National Agreement. C&A-Clks. Decision No. 113. P. T.—
BRSE. Decision 838.
Dispute regarding posting of notices of interest to employees as provided
under Rule 75 of Clerks' National Agreement; carrier contending only such
notices as it approves may be posted, while employees contend that any notices
which may be considered of interest to the employees may be posted. Decision-
Posting of notices of lodge and committee meetings and social activities, and
verbatim copies of decisions and interpretations issued by Labor Board covers
intent of rule referred to. LV-Clks. Decision No. 133.
Where on May 3, 1920, agreement was reached establishing certain seniority
districts and "Excepted Positions," question as to proper or seniority date
of clerk who has been continuously employed on one of the specified seniority
districts since August, 1907, holding positions classified as "personal office
force" from that date until June, 1917, since which date has been filling
a non-excepted position. Employees contend that seniority should only date
from June 1917, when he was appointed to the non-excepted position, while
the road holds seniority should date from August, 1907, when he entered service
on his present seniority district. Decision-Rule 29 of Clerks' National
Agreement is not retroactive in its aspect; therefore contention of carrier is
sustained. MP-Clks. Decision No. 132.
Question as to whether Rule 49 of the Clerks' National Agreement, pro-
viding for payment on monthly basis to cover all service rendered where
service is intermittent, applies to positions such as baggage and mail handlers,
gatemen, train and engine crew callers, janitors, warehousemen, station bag-
gagemen and porters; employees contending that Rule 49 does not apply and that
the employees filling these positions should be paid on a daily basis. De-
cision-Evidence before Board shows service performed by employees in ques-
tion does not require continuous application, and these employees, therefore,
are being properly paid on basis established by Rule 49. MP-Clks. De-
cision Nos. 156, 157, 158, 159, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167 and 172. JT
Co-Clks. Decision No. 160. NP-Clks. Decision Nos. 168 and 169. St-
LSF Clks. Decision No. 170. HUDCo-Clks. Decision No. 171.
Question as to whether rearrangement of work and readjustment of rates.
of pay of certain positions brought about by merger of two departments, is in
conflict with Rules 71 and 84 of the Clerks' National Agreement, employees
contending that the duties have not been changed. Decision-Position of
carrier sustained. C&NW-Clks. Decision No. 183.
Question as to whether the position of depot foreman comes within the scope
of the Clerks' National Agreement, carrier holding that the depot foreman
at the station in question has direct supervision over other employees who are
sub-foremen within the meaning of Section (b), Rule 1 of Article I, of the
National Agreement, and that such position is, therefore, excepted from the
provisions of the Agreement. Decision-Carrier sustained. CCC&StL-Clks.
Decision No. 201.
Question whether positions of "Matrons" at stations come within the scope
145
of the Clerks' National Agreement and governed by provisions of that agree-
ment. Decision-Yes, "station attendants" as defined in Article I, Rule 1,
Paragraph 2. Sou Pac-Clks. Decision No. 38.
Question as to whether certain positions listed in submission are to be con-
sidered personal office force and excepted from provisions of Clerks' National
Agreement. Decision-Positions listed in decision to be classified as personal
office force. StLSF-Clerks. Decision No. 39.
Where employee left the service and carrier bulletined the vacancy at a
lower rate of pay than the former incumbent was receiving, claim is made
that such reduction in the rate of the position was in violation of Rule 71 of
the Clerks' National Agreement, and that the former rate be re-established
from date the reduction was made, and the increase authorized by Decision
No. 2 added to said rate. Decision-Claim sustained. Decision not to be
construed to prohibit the establishment of minimum rates for inexperienced
clerks as provided in Decision No. 147. EP&SW-Clks. Decision No. 238.
Was the action of the carrier in abolishing the position of chief car
record clerk and creating position of car accountant in conflict with Rule 84
of Clerks' National Agreement and does the position of car accountant come
within the scope of the agreement? Decision-Board decides that action of
carrier was not a violation of Rule 84, and that the position of car accountant
at the point in question is not within the scope of the national agreement.
RF&P-Clks. Decision No. 241.
Claim that position of valuation accountant comes within the scope of the
Clerks' National Agreement and should have been bulletined in accordance
with Rule 12 of the agreement. Decision-Evidence before Board shows that
the employee involved left the service of the carrier August 28, 1920, and
the position in question was abolished October 1, 1920; therefore, there is
nothing for Board to decide in this case and it is ordered stricken from the
docket and the file closed. EP&SN-Clerks. Decision No. 242.
Claim that classification of position as "red cap" is improper, as major
portion of the work performed is work generally recognized as janitor's work,
and position should, therefore, come within the scope of the Clerks' National
Agreement and be subject to the provisions thereof. Decision-Position in
question is properly classified as red cap, and, therefore, does not come within
the scope of the Clerks' National Agreement as defined in Article I thereof.
SP-Cĺks. Decision No. 246.
Question as to proper rate of compensation for clerk who, after completing
his regular assignment from 4 p. m. to midnight, was required to work from
midnight to 8 a. m. on another position carrying a higher rate of pay than his
regular assignment. Employee was allowed time and one-half overtime based
on straight time rate of his own position, but is contending for overtime on
basis of rate of position which he was filling. Decision-Claim denied. N&W
-Clerks. Decision No. 278.
Claim of extra clerk, working two 8-hour shifts within a 24-hour period,
for time and one-half rate for work performed on second shift. Decision-
Claim denied. N&W-Clerks. Decision No. 279.
Claim of clerks for additional compensation for work performed on Sat-
urday afternoons. Decision-Claim denied. GC&SF-Clks. Decision No. 280.
Question as to whether position of telephone switchboard operator is a
clerical position as defined in Rule 4 of Clerks' National Agreement, and
whether occupant thereof should be included in the clerical seniority roster.
Position in question was abolished and occupant thereof claims displacement
rights over junior clerical employees, which was denied by carrier on ground
she held no clerical seniority rights. Decision-Claim of employees denied.
N&W-Clerks. Decision No. 284.
Vacancy occurred in a certain position which was promptly bulletined and
clerk, who was filling position of voucher clerk in same department, applied for
and was awarded the vacancy. His name was posted as the successful ap-
plicant, and his position of voucher clerk thereupon bulletined and subse-
quently awarded to the senior qualified applicant. Employees now claim that
while the clerk in question was the successful applicant for the position re-
ferred to and his name posted as required by Rule 12 of the national agree-
146
ment, he was never actually assigned to the position, and his position of voucher
clerk should never have been bulletined. This clerk who failed to take the
position which was awarded to him subsequently applied for and was assigned
to another position. Decision-Evidence indicates that the provisions of the
rules are strictly adhered to by the carrier in connection with bulletining of
positions involved, and claim of employees is, therefore, denied. N&W—
Clerks. Decision No. 285.
Prior to national agreement, clerical employees were allowed two weeks
vacation with pay. Under national agreement employees were placed on a
daily basis, the daily rate being fixed on basis of 306 days per year, time worked
on Sundays being paid for in addition. Since this agreement 7-day per week
employees are being allowed 12 days vacation with pay, while the employees
are contending that such seven-day clerks should be given 14 days vacation
with pay.
Decision-Claim of employees denied. N&W-Clks. Decision
No. 306.
Question as to whether position now filled by employee who is classified
and paid as car cleaner is a clerical position as defined in Rule 4 of Article II
of Clerks' National Agreement. Employees contend that duties of this car
cleaner consist of keeping reports and accounts, writing and transcribing
repair statement and performing similar work for a period averaging five hours
per day regularly, and that his position, therefore, is one which should be
designated as a clerical position in accordance with the agreement. Decision-
Evidence before the Board shows that this employee devotes more than four
hours per day to clerical work as defined in Rule 4 of Article II of the
Clerks' National Agreement and the position of the employees is, therefore,
sustained. MP-Clerks. Decision No. 368.
Vacancy occurred in position of mail carrier, which was bulletined but no
applications received from employees on the clerks' seniority roster in the
seniority district in which the vacancy occurred. Two applications, however,
were received from employees in another seniority district-one from an em-
ployee in the car department and another from an employee in the
store department and position was awarded to employee in the car
department. The employees contend that position should have been
awarded to the employee in the store department for the reason he was the
senior applicant and was employed in the department in which the provisions
of the Clerks' National Agreement applied, whereas the employee in the car
department was engaged in service governed by rules of an agreement with
another class of employees, and construe Rule 24, which provides that em-
ployees filing application for positions bulletined in other seniority districts
should if they possess sufficient fitness and ability be given preference over non-
employees, to require the appointment of an employee in the department in
which the provisions of the agreement apply in preference to employees
working under provisions of agreements with other organizations. Decision-
Claim of employee denied. WM-Clerks. Decision No. 367.
Where employee filling position of baggage and mail handler was assigned
to position of apron tender in place of regular employee, who was absent
account sickness, and continued on said position for more than one year, when
he was displaced by apron tender senior in the service whose position was
abolished account reduction in force, claim is made that as the employee in
question satisfactorily filled position of apron tender for a period of fourteen
months he should have been permitted to exercise his seniority over an apron
tender junior to himself when displaced by the senior apron tender, and request
is made that he be restored to the position of apron tender and paid the rate
thereof from date he was so displaced. Carrier holds that employee referred
to was never formally assigned to the position of apron tender and that there
is no rule in the clerks' agreement under which he is entitled to exercise his
seniority to displace a junior employee. Decision-Position of employees is
sustained. SPCo-Clerks. Decision No. 372.
Question as to whether abolition of position of foreman and creation of
position of stockman in the stationery store department at certain point was in
conflict with provisions of Rule 84 of the Clerks' National Agreement. Em-
ployees do not question right of carrier to reorganize department, but contend
147
that the abolition of the position designated as foreman and the creation of
position of stockman was unnecessary and that there has merely been a change
of title covering relatively the same class of work. The new position was
bulletined and as a result of the exercise of seniority rights the employee
formerly filling the position of foreman was displaced and obliged to take a
clerical position at a lower rate of pay. Decision-Board decides that all
the rules of the national agreement were complied with in connection with the
reorganization of the department in question and that there was no violation
of Rule 84 of said agreement. SP-Clerks. Decision No. 379.
Claim of certain clerical employees for Saturday afternoons off with pay
under Rule 57 of the Clerks' National Agreement. Case withdrawn by em-
ployees and file closed. PMRy--Clerks. Decision No. 395.
Question as to how increases specified in Article 2 of Decision No. 2 shall
be applied to laborers, store helpers and stockmen employed in the store depart-
ment at certain point. Employees contend that the laborers are engaged in
loading and unloading, trucking and handling material and supplies, and should
have been increased 12c per hour under Section 7, Article II; that the store
helpers devote the majority of their time to clerical work and should have
been increased 13c per hour under Section 2, Article II; that the stockmen
keep records of stock, make reports of stock on hand, check materials, super-
vise other employees in storehouse, and are entitled to an increase of 13c per
hour under Section 1, Article II. Decision-Board decides on evidence before
it that these laborers are not station, platform, or store-room freight handlers,
or truckers, or others similarly engaged within the intent of Section 7 of
Article II; that the store helpers and stockmen referred to do not devote a
majority of their time to work of a clerical nature as defined in Rule 4,
Article II, of the Clerks' National Agreement; that the stockmen are not
clerical supervisory employees referred to in Section 1, Article II of Section
2; and claim of employees is therefore denied. M&ORy-Clerks. Decision
No. 384.
Dispute regarding payment for certain clerical employees on a monthly
basis instead of a daily basis. Decision-It appears this dispute covers dif-
ference of opinion between employees and carrier as to application of rule
66 of the National Agreement but that no claims for payment in accordance
with employees' understanding of the rule are pending for adjustment. As this
rule has been given consideration in conferences conducted between represent-
atives of the employees and the carrier in accordance with Decision 119 the
Board does not consider it desirable to pass upon the dispute at this time. Case
is, therefore, removed from docket and file closed. SP-Clks. Decision No.
459.
Dispute in regard to classification and rate of pay of position of baggage-
man clerk at certain point. Prior to April 1, 1921, a major portion of the
time consumed by this employee was devoted to the work of trucking and
handling baggage. On that date there was added to the position sufficient
clerical duties to justify its classification as a clerk within the designation of
Rule 4 of the Clerks' National Agreement and the position was designated as
baggageman clerk at specified daily rate, which rate was established by multi-
plying the hourly rate previously paid by the number of hours constituting a
day's work. Employees contend that the change constituted the establishment
of a new position, the rate of which should conform with the rate of position
of similar kind and class in the seniority district in which it was created, and
further contend that the rate should have been established by applying prin-
ciple contained in Rule 66 of the Clerks' National Agreement. Carrier takes
position that Rule 66 has no application and that the duties of the position
in question are not similar to duties of positions in the same seniority district
which the employees claim are of similar kind and class. Decision-Position
of carrier sustained. SP-Clerks. Decision No. 466.
Question as to whether rate established by Railroad Administration for
employees classified as check clerks in freight office at certain point shall con-
tinue in effect after expiration of Federal control. During period of Federal
control the positions involved in this dispute were changed from classification
of stevedores paid on hourly basis to check clerks paid on monthly basis. A
148
dispute arose as to the proper rate of pay for these employees and decision
was issued by the Director General of Railroads increasing the monthly rate,
which rate the carrier applied and continued to pay until the expiration of
Federal control, when it decreased the monthly rate to the former basis. The
employees contend that the higher rate having been authorized by the Director
General of Railroads became a part of the national agreement and should
remain in effect as provided in Rule 86 of said agreement. Decision-The
Board decides that the rate of the positions involved in this dispute was the
rate established by and under the authority of the U. S. Railroad Administra-
tion and in accordance with the provisions of Rule 86 of the national agree-
ment, Decision No. 2 of the Labor Board, and the Transportation Act, this rate
shall remain in effect until changed by mutual agreement or by decision of
the Board. StLSF-Clerks. Decision No. 465.
Question as to whether positions of collector on toll bridge at certain point
shall be included within the scope of the Clerks' National Agreement, em-
ployees contending that these collectors are performing work similar to that
performed by ticket clerks and that said positions should therefore come within
the scope of the agreement. Carrier claims that the only work of a clerical
nature as defined in Rule 4 of the national agreement performed by these
employees is the preparation of the ticket report to the auditor, which con-
sumes about 30 minutes of each 8-hour trick. Decision-Board decides that
the positions in question do not come within the scope of the Clerks' National
Agreement and claim of employees is therefore denied. StLSF-Clerks. De-
cision No. 471.
Claim that clerk in general dispatcher's office, whose position was abol-
ished, should be permitted to exercise his seniority rights in local freight office
at same point. Employees contend that clerk in question was carried on the
same seniority roster as clerk in local freight office and should have been
permitted to exercise his seniority in that office, while the carrier takes the
position that he was not in the same seniority district and not entitled to
displace employee younger in the service at the local freight office. Decision-
Under the provisions of Section (b), Article XII, of Supplement 7 to G. O. 27,
the two offices referred to are within the same department of the superin-
tendent's division on which this clerk was employed, and the Board therefore
decides that he should be permitted to exercise his seniority rights to any
position within the scope of the national agreement in the local freight office
in accordance with Rules 27 and 31 of the agreement. G&SI-Clerks. Deci-
sion No. 463.
·
Claim of certain clerical employees in the general offices of the carrier, who
were required to work on various Saturday afternoons, for additional com-
pensation for service performed thereon, contention being made under Rule 57
of the Clerks' National Agreement. Decision-In the opinion of the Board
the last paragraph of Rule 57 does not contemplate that employees who are
required to work on Saturday afternoons shall be paid overtime therefor.
This language is to provide for the continuation of the practice of allowing.
employees to be off for a part of the day on certain days of the week where
such practice is now in effect, but when required to work in case of emergency
Claim
on such days does not provide for additional compensation therefor.
is therefore denied. IllCent-Clerks.
IllCent-Clerks. Decision No. 461. CM&StP-Clerks.
Decisions Nos. 468, 469, and 470.
Question as to whether Rule 49 of the Clerks' National Agreement is
applicable to position of warehouse foreman at certain point, employees claim-
ing that this rule does not apply to the position in question. Decision-Board
does not consider the positions of warehouse foremen to be analogous to
those defined as "other office and station employees" in Paragraph 2, Rule 1,
of Article I of the Clerks' National Agreement. Therefore, Rule 49 of this
agreement is not applicable to this position, and position of employees is
sustained. StLSW-Clerks. Decision No. 479.
Request of carriers for elimination of inequalities of rates of pay of certain
clerical and station employees paid on a daily basis. During Federal control
the carriers, under a decision issued by the Railway Board of Adjustment No.
3, were required to apply Rule 66 of the Clerks' National Agreement to em-
149
ployees paid on a daily and hourly basis. This resulted in clerical and station
employees, working seven days a week, who formerly received the same daily
compensation as employees working six days a week, receiving a higher daily
rate of pay.
Carrier claims that Rule 66 refers solely to the method of
computing the daily rate of employees paid on a monthly or weekly basis,
and makes no reference to employees paid on a daily or hourly basis, and
further contends that the application of this rule to employees paid on a daily
or hourly basis has resulted in unjustifiable inequalities in the daily rates of
pay of positions which had previously paid the same rate per day. Decision-
It is the opinion of the Board that Rule 66 of the Clerks National Agreement
prescribes the manner of determining the daily rate for employees paid on a
monthly or weekly basis. It makes no reference to employees paid on a daily
basis and the application of the formula prescribed therein for converting
monthly and weekly rates to a daily basis to employees who are already paid
on a daily basis had the effect of establishing inequalities in the rates of pay
of employees performing the same work in the same office who had previously
received the same rate per day regardless of whether they worked six or seven
days a week. When the Board extended the effective period of the Clerks'
National Agreement it adopted for a temporary purpose Rule 66 and in a
sense made it a rule of the Board. Therefore, the Board has a right to con-
sider this rule and interpret its meaning and is not bound by the construction
placed thereon by any other authority existing prior to the passage of the
Transportation Act. The Board therefore decides that effective December
16, 1922, the differential now existing between the daily rate paid to employees
working on a six and seven day per week basis shall be abolished by reducing
the daily rate of the seven-day-per-week employees to the daily rate paid
six-day-per-week employees. B&M-MC-NYNH&H-CofNE-PTer-Clks.
Decision No. 426.
Question as to whether clerk in freight station at certain point, whose posi-
tion was abolished, should be permitted to exercise seniority rights in the
office of superintendent of transportation at the same point. This privilege
was denied on the ground that clerk in question did not hold seniority in that
department, while the employees contend that these two offices are in the same
seniority district. Decision-Board decides that the two offices in question are
not within the same seniority district as contemplated by Section (b), Article
XII, of Supplement 7 to G. O. 27, and claim is therefore denied. G&SI—
Clerks. Decision No. 460.
Where yard clerk, whose position was abolished January 10, 1921, applied
for right to exercise his seniority to position of assistant timekeeper, but was
not assigned thereto until January 21, 1921, claim is made for compensation
for time lost in the interim. Carrier states that position of assistant time-
keeper required a familiarity with instructions governing the application of
rates of pay and a knowledge of rules covering working conditions; that at
the time this employee, who had had no previous experience in this particular
work, applied for the position certain monthly reports were in course of
preparation, and it did not consider that he had sufficient fitness and ability
to assume the duties of the position at that time, and that as soon as these
reports were completed he was assigned to said position. Decision-Evidence
before the Board shows that the employee in question had the requisite sen-
iority, fitness and ability to satisfactorily perform the duties of assistant time-
keeper, and he is therefore entitled to the rate of the position for the period
January 11 to 20, inclusive. CM&StP-Clerks. Decision No. 475.
Question as to proper seniority date of employee in superintendent's office,
who prior to issuance of Supplement 7 to G. O. 27 was classified as a messen-
ger and after effective date of Supplement 7 classification was changed to
clerk. Employees contend that seniority should date from date on which posi-
tion was classified as clerk, whereas carrier contends seniority should date
from date of entering service. Decision-Position of carrier sustained. N&W
-Clerks. Decision No. 505.
Dispute with reference to indefinite leave of absence for stenographer in
master mechanic's office. This employee requested leave of absence to accept
position of assistant to secretary of system federation of shop crafts, which
150
application was declined by carrier. Employee states that the duties of this
position consist of handling funds of the system federation and correspondence
relating to the business of the organization, and that under the provisions of
Rules 46 and 47 of the Clerks' National Agreement the employee in question
is entitled to an indefinite leave of absence. Carrier holds that it is not proper
to grant an indefinite leave of absence in this case under rules referred to.
Decision-Position of carrier sustained. MoPac-Clerks. Decision No. 506.
Dispute with reference to furnishing copy of seniority roster to the duly
accredited representative of clerical employees. Decision-Board decides that
under the provisions of Rule 22 of the Clerks' National Agreement the duly
accredited representative of the employees covered by said agreement is entitled
to a copy of the seniority roster, and position of employees is therefore sus-
tained. Sou Pac-Clerks. Decisions Nos. 519 and 511.
Request for application of Rule 66 of the Clerks' National Agreement to
clerical and station employees paid on a daily basis. Decision-Claim denied,
Board having decided in its Decision No. 426 that Rule 66 does not apply to
clerical and station employees paid on a daily basis. BostonTer-BofRR&SE.
Decision No. 529.
Dispute concerning rate of pay and compensation for messengers employed
in local freight office at certain point. Decision-As carrier and employees
have not made proper effort to determine applicability of Rule 49 of Clerks'
National Agreement to this case, Board decides that parties to this dispute
shall conduct an investigation of the work performed in an effort to determine
whether or not the employees are properly subject to Rule 49, and in event
that an agreement cannot be reached, refer the matter to this Board for
decision, giving full information as to the extent to which service requires
continuous application. D&RG-Clerks. Decision No. 559.
Claim that position held by employee now classified and paid as trucker is
a clerical position as defined in Rule 4, Article II, of the Clerks' National
Agreement and should be reclassified in accordance therewith. Decision-
Evidence before the Board shows that employee in question does not devote
more than four hours a day to clerical work as defined in rule referred to,
and claim of employees is therefore denied. PM-Clerks. Decision No. 565.
Question as to proper application of Rule 50 of the Clerks' National
Agreement in the case of three hourly rated employees who were released
before completion of their 8-hour assignment and in the case of two hourly
rated employees who reported for work at regular starting time, not having
been notified otherwise, and were sent home without working. Employees
contend that under rule referred to the men who reported for work at their
regular starting time are entitled to three hours' pay therefor, and that the
men who were released before completion of their assignment are entitled to
not less than eight hours' pay therefor. Carrier declined the claim on the
ground that these are the classes of employees referred to in the last sentence
of Rule 50, which reads: "This guarantee will not be construed to apply to
those who are employed to take care of fluctuating work that can be handled
by regular forces." Decision-Position of employees is sustained. PM-
Clerks. Decision No. 566.
Claim of certain employee for reimbursement for time lost incident to
reduction in days of regular weekly assignment. Account decrease in business
certain employees were required to work 4½ days a week or 20 days per
month, which resulted in a reduction in their earnings. Employees contend
that this action on the part of the carrier was in conflict with Rule 66 of the
Clerks' National Agreement. Decision-Board decides that reduction of the
day's work below six per week was in violation of Rule 66 of the agreement
and that the clerk in question shall be reimbursed for the difference between
the compensation he has received since reduction went into effect and compen-
sation he would have received if he had been permitted to work the full number
of hours constituting his regular assignment. G&SI-Clerks. Decision No.
572.
Claim of daily rated employees for pay for Armistice Day (which was
declared a legal holiday at the point in question), on which day they were
notified not to work. Decision-The language of Rule 66 of the Clerks' Na-
151
tional Agreement is understood by the Board to refer to the holidays desig-
nated in Rule 64 of said agreement, unless other holidays are mutually agreed
upon. In lieu of any such agreement the Board decides that under this rule
daily rated employees are entitled to pay for Armistice Day. PM-Clerks.
Decision No. 574. MC-Clerks. Decision No. 764.
Question as to right of clerk in the East Providence enginehouse, whose
position was abolished, to exercise his seniority at the Providence enginehouse,
which right was denied by carrier on the ground that these two enginehouses
were not in the same seniority district. Decision-Board decides that this
clerk shall be permitted to exercise his seniority to any position within the
scope of the Clerks' National Agreement in the mechanical department on the
Providence Division in accordance with the rules of said agreement and shall
be reimbursed for time lost account being refused the right to do so when
his position was abolished, less any amount he may have earned at other
employment since date he was laid off. NYNH&H-Clerks. Decision
No. 578.
Dispute with reference to leave of absence for certain employee acting as
general chairman of the clerks' organization. This employee made application
for a 30-day leave of absence with privilege of extension. Application was
approved with understanding that extension would be granted provided request
was made before the expiration of the 30-day period, but the extension privi-
lege was subsequently cancelled in writing by the carrier and later when the
employee requested an extension of his leave his request was denied. Decision
-It appears that after this dispute was submitted to the Board this employee
was released from the carrier's service, but with an appeal for reinstatement.
Therefore, there is nothing for the Board to decide in this dispute. However,
if he should be reinstated it follows that in line with the time-honored practice
of granting leave of absence to regularly elected general chairmen, the Board
would then find that a leave of absence was proper and should be allowed so
long as he remained the regularly chosen representative of the clerks. G&SI-
Clerks. Decision No. 606.
Claim of certain clerks for payment for overtime worked in excess of 8
hours per day. Prior to January 1, 1919, the employees involved were work-
ing 52 hours per week. They made request that their hours of service be re-
duced to 48 hours per week and arranged so that they would work 834 hours
on week days and 44 hours on Saturday, which arrangement was agreed to
by the carrier and placed in effect on January 1, 1919, and continued in effect
after the issuance of the Clerks' National Agreement, effective January 1,
1920. In October, 1920, employees made claim that all employees who had
worked under this arrangement should be paid overtime after 8 hours from
the effective date of the Clerks' National Agreement. On December 16, 1920,
an agreement was entered into between the employees and the Superintendent
of Terminals at the point in question, establishing an 8-hour day for the first
five days of the week and a 5-hour day on Saturdays, in consideration of
which the employees agreed to waive all claims for overtime for the first
five days of the week which had been worked prior to December 16, 1920.
On January 31, 1921, carrier cancelled the agreement of December 16, 1920, and
gave notice to the employees that thereafter the hours of service would be 8
per day six days per week, taking the position that the officer who entered
into the agreement in question exceeded his authority in doing so. Employees
entered protest and on February 7, 1921, an agreement was made restoring the
conditions which extended from January 1, 1919, to December 16, 1920, the
employees waiving all claims for overtime which might be worked while this
agreement was in effect pending settlement for their claim for overtime worked
from effective date of Clerks' National Agreement to December 16, 1920. At
hearing conducted by the Board the employees modified their request to cover
the period from March 1, 1920, to December 16, 1920. Employees also con-
tend for continuance of the 45-hour week under Rule 57 of national agreement,
as well as under the local agreement of December 16, 1920. Carrier takes
position that the Labor Board has no jurisdiction in this case, claiming that
Board has no authority to make any decision either denying or sustaining a
claim for "wages due"; that this is a matter for the courts to determine under
152
the working agreement in effect during the period for which the claim is made.
Carrier further contends that all previous contracts were annulled by the
agreement of February 7, 1921, that the claim for overtime is not justified in-
asmuch as these employees were by an agreement working a 48-hour week
and the hours were changed at their request in order that they might be off
Saturday afternoons_and_that_the_45-hour week should not be allowed be-
cause agreement of February 7, 1921, provided for a 48-hour week. Decision
-Board took jurisdiction in this dispute stating that it has the authority to
grant or deny claim for overtime; and decides that as it is conclusively shown
that the employees requested and were granted a 48-hour week on January 1,
1919, and the hours were arranged to suit their convenience the claim for
overtime for work performed in excess of 8 hours the first five days of the
week is denied; and that for the reasons herein set forth in denying the claim
for overtime the Board denies the request for the establishment of a 45-hour
week and considers that it is a question to be determined as a part of the
submission made as a result of the conference held under Decision No. 119.
CI&L-Clks. Decision No. 607.
Dispute with reference to preservation of rates for certain clerical em-
ployees. Supplement No. 7 to G. O. 27 established for certain clerical em-
ployees rates of pay which were less than those established by G. O. 27, but
in conference with representatives of the employees the carrier agreed to
preserve the higher rates established by G. O. 27, which agreement was
approved by the Regional Director. Subsequently the Federal manager issued
instructions that all rates established by G. O. 27, which were higher than
those authorized by Supplement No. 7 thereto, should be reduced when the
positions to which they applied became vacant. Employees contend that action
of the carrier in reducing the rates of the positions involved is violation
of Rule 86 of the Clerks' National Agreement, Decision No. 2 of the Labor
Board, and the Transportation Act, and request that the rates of pay estab-
lished by G. O. 27 be restored and that the employees who suffered reduc-
tion in wages be reimbursed for monetary loss sustained. Decision-Board
decides that rates established by G. O. 27 and preserved by agreement be-
tween representatives of the employees and the carrier were the rates estab-
lished by or under the authority of the U. S. Railroad Administration in
effect 12:01 a. m., March 1, 1920, and should have remained in effect until
changed by mutual agreement or decision of the Board. The subsequent
action authorized by the Federal manager, but without conference or agree-
ment, seems to have been an afterthought and while in equity may have had
some justification it was not so properly handled as to give it full force and
effect. The employees involved shall, therefore, be reimbursed for the differ-
ence between the rates of pay they received while holding the positions
affected and the rates which should have been established for such positions
by applying the decisions of the Labor Board to the rates in effect 12:01 a. m.,
March 1, 1920. SouPac-Clerks. Decision No. 622.
Question as to whether position of personal stenographer to shop accountant
at certain point should be included within the scope of the Clerks' National
Agreement as defined in Rule 1, Article I thereof.
thereof. Decision-Board decides
that position in question was included within the scope of the agreement and
that the employee who made application therefor should have been assigned,
and she shall, therefore, be reimbursed for the monetary loss sustained by
reason of not being assigned to the position from February 10th to April 15th,
1921, the date the position was abolished, less any amount earned in other
employment during that period. CM&StP-Clerks. Decision No. 626.
Question as to application of Rule 49 of the Clerks' National Agreement
to "other office and station employees" enumerated in Paragraph 2, Rule 1 of
said agreement. Prior to effective date of Clerks' National Agreement "all
other office and station employees" on the carrier involved were paid monthly
rates, which were converted into daily rates under Rule 66 of the agreement,
on which basis the payment was continued in effect until carrier received
Decisions Nos. 156 to 172, inclusive, of the Labor Board when, effective July
1, 1921, the monthly basis of compensation as provided in Rule 49 of the
agreement was restored. Decision-It is apparent from the evidence before
153
the Board in this dispute that there are stations in which the employees subject
to the provisions of this rule perform service that is intermittent or does
not require continuous application and to whom Rule 49 manifestly applies,
and it is also equally manifest that there are stations at which the employees
subject to the provisions of this rule perform service which is not intermittent
and to whom Rule 49 does not apply. It is, therefore, ordered that this dispute
shall be remanded to the employees and the carrier and that their repre-
sentatives shall confer and eliminate from the dispute the employees at those
stations where it is plainly manifest that Rule 49 does or does not apply.
Where an agreement cannot be reached the employees and the carrier shall
jointly submit for the decision of the Board their contentions with respect to
each specific position in dispute. In the meantime it is ordered that at stations
where the carrier is willing to concede in the conference with the employees
that Rule 49 does not apply, they shall restore such employees to the daily
basis of pay and reimburse them for the monetary loss sustained since July 1,
1921. It shall also be understood that where the Board shall decide on basis
of evidence to be submitted that certain positions were improperly placed un-
der Rule 49 and readjustment is ordered, such readjustment shall be retro-
active to July 1, 1921. NYC-Clerks. Decision No. 632. NYC-RRStation
Employees. Decision No. 633.
Question as to whether position of storekeeper in roundhouse at certain
point comes within the scope of the Clerks' National Agreement. Decision-
Board decides that this position does not come within the scope of the agree-
ment and request of employees that position in question be bulletined for bid is,
therefore, denied. LV-Clerks. Decision No. 696.
Question as to whether position of chief clerk to agent at certain point
comes within the scope of the Clerks' National Agreement. Decision-Board
decides that the point in question is one of the larger stations as referred to
in Paragraph (b), under title "Exceptions," Rule 1, Article I of the national
agreement, and claim of employees is, therefore, denied. PM-Clks. De-
cision No. 730.
In order to effect certain economies and avoid a reduction in force, carrier
circulated a petition among the employees for purpose of securing their con-
sent to a reduction in the number of working days to five per week, which
petition was signed unanimously and the five-day per week assignment placed
in effect. Employees are now contending that this change in the weekly as-
signment, below six days, constituted a violation of Rule 66, and request
that employees involved be reimbursed for the day of each week that they
were laid off during the period said arrangement was in effect. Decision-
Claim of employees denied. LV-Clks. Decision No. 732.
Dispute with reference to changing hours of service in certain general
offices of the carrier. In various offices, it was the practice to work clerical
employees seven hours and fifteen minutes daily, except Saturday, on which
day the offices are closed between 12 noon and 1 p. m. In December, 1920, the
working hours were increased to eight per day, five days per week, but no
change made in the practice of allowing the half-holiday on Saturday. Em-
ployees contend that this change was in violation of Rule 57 of the Clerks'
National Agreement. Decision-Claim of employees denied. NYC-Clks.
Decision No. 731. LV-Clks. Decision No. 734.
Question as to whether certain positions, the duties of which were ma-
terially changed, should be bulletined and employees holding same be per-
mitted to exercise their seniority rights under the rules of the Clerks' Na-
tional Agreement. Employees contend that the employees involved in this
dispute held positions of rate revision clerks, and that the change in the
character of the work of their positions constituted the abolishment of the
positions of rate clerks and the establishment of new positions of cor-
respondence clerks, and that these employees should, therefore, be permitted
to exercise their seniority rights over junior rate clerks in the office, and that
the positions which they held should be bulletined as positions of cor-
respondence clerks, in accordance with the rules of the agreement. Carrier
states that as a result of an increase in the amount of correspondence and
statements of differences handled, it was necessary to reapportion the work
154
among the clerks in the office in question, in order to avoid an unequal dis-
tribution of the work; that no change was made in the rates of pay for hours.
of service; that the clerks continued on their positions without loss in time
and that no new positions were created. Decision-Board decides that posi-
tions held by the employees involved were not abolished; that the action
taken by the carrier was not in violation of any rule of the national agree-
ment, and claim of employees is, therefore, denied. B&O-Clks. Decision
No. 740.
Question as to whether Rule 49 of the Clerks' National Agreement is
applicable to positions of foreman and assistant foreman in the baggage and
mail departments, train directors, train callers or announcers, gatemen, infor-
mation bureau clerks, telephone switchboard operators, railroad mail sorters,
and elevator operators at the union depot at certain point. Decision-Board
decides that service performed by the employees classified as train directors,
gatemen, elevator operators, train announcers and railroad mail sorters, does
not require continuous application, and they are, therefore, properly paid in
accordance with Rule 49. The information bureau clerks, telephone infor-
mation clerks and foremen should be paid a daily rate to be established as pro-
vided in Rule 66 of the agreement. The employees classified as assistant
foremen, and paid a monthly rate, are not assistant foremen in fact, but are
employees who have heretofore been paid an hourly rate of 2c above the
hourly rate of truckers, and they should be restored to this basis of pay.
This decision is based on the particular facts of this case. StPUnion Depot Co-
Clks. Decision No. 824.
When the national agreement became effective, carrier in question took
position that certain stations, about 70 in number, were larger stations, where
the agreement would not apply to the chief clerks to the agents at such
points, while the employees claim that there were no stations on the line
that would come under this classification, but later agreed to except 10 of the
larger stations. Failing to reach an agreement on all of the stations involved,
a joint submission was made to the United States Railroad Administration
and Board of Adjustment No. 3 issued Decision No. 733, which provided that
chief clerks to local freight agents should be subject to the provisions of the
Clerks' National Agreement. This decision was not put into effect, but after
conferences between the representatives of the employees and the carrier, an
agreement was reached in March, 1921, which provided that chief clerks to
the agents at 10 stations enumerated therein should be excepted from the
rules of the Clerks' National Agreement, and that effective April 1, 1921,
the agreement would apply to all other chief clerks to freight station agents.
Employees are now requesting additional compensation that would have accrued
to chief clerks at certain of the stations if the rules of the national agreement
had applied to their positions during the period March 1, 1920, to April 1,
1921. Carrier contends that at the conferences held in March, 1921, no
reference was made to the question of retroactive pay nor any claim pre-
sented by the employees at that time, and furthermore that it was specifically
set forth in the memorandum of agreement dated March 23, 1921, that it
would be effective April, 1921, and that the employees accepted and pro-
mulgated this agreement. Decision-Claim of employees denied. ACL-Clks.
Decision No. 835.
Where employee, after fulfilling his own assignment, is required to re-
lieve the regular assigned employee on the succeeding shift, for which he
was paid at the straight-time rate of the position of the employee relieved,
employees are claiming pay at rate of time and one-half under Rule 57 of
the national agreement. Decision-Board decides that service performed by
the employees involved in this dispute was not a temporary assignment within
the meaning of Rule 72 of the agreement, and claim of employees is sustained.
GC&SF-Clks. Decision No. 839.
Where position of claim clerk was abolished and new position of utility
clerk created, claim is made that such action was in violation of Rule 84 of
the Clerks' National Agreement, and that certain senior employees should be
given the opportunity of qualifying for the position of utility clerk, in ac-
cordance with the rules of the agreement. Decision-Evidence shows that
155
position of claim clerk was abolished and position of utility clerk, with some
added duties, was established in lieu thereof. The rate of the position re-
mained the same, and the new position was bulletined as required by the rules
of the agreement; therefore the claim that Rule 84 was violated is not sus-
tained. It is also shown that the senior employees referred to did not have
the requisite fitness and ability to qualify on the position of utility clerk, and
the claim of the employees that they be granted a trial on the position is,
therefore, denied. G&SI-Clks. Decision No. 855.
Claim of certain clerk for pay for time absent from duty account of death
in family. Decision-Board reaffirms its direction in previous decisions that
pending decision of the Board, orders, agreements and decisions of the U. S.
Railroad Administration shall remain in effect unless or until changed by
mutual agreement between the employees and the carrier. It appears that the
claim presented by the employees has not been considered in conference by the
carrier and employees on a basis of practices in effect prior to Federal control.
The Board, therefore, remands this dispute to employees and carrier for con-
sideration on basis of past practice, and in event of failure to agree thereon,
it may be resubmitted for decision. This decision is based upon rules of the
Clerks' National Agreement and is not to be construed as indicating the atti-
tude of the Board on the question of pay for time absent account of per-
sonal reasons. StLSF-Clks. Decision No. 874.
Claim of certain clerical employees for time lost account of illness. De-
cision-The Board has heretofore decided that pending decisions by the Board,
the instructions of the Director, Division of Operation, U. S. Railroad Ad-
ministration, shall remain in effect. It appears that the claim presented has
not been considered in conference by the employees and carrier on basis of
past practice, and the Board, therefore, remands this dispute to the em-
ployees for consideration on this basis. In the event of failure to agree, it may
be resubmitted for decision. This decision is based upon the rules of the na-
tional agreement and the instructions of the Director, Division of Operation,
U. S. Railroad Administration, and is not to be construed as indicating the
attitude of the Board on the question of pay for time lost account of sickness,
remanded to the employees and carrier in Decision No. 630. StLSF-Clks.
Decisions Nos. 875, 876, 877, 878, 879.
Question as to application of Rule 66 of the Clerks' National Agreement
to positions paid on piece-work basis. Case removed from the docket and file
closed, in accordance with understanding reached between the employees and
carrier at hearing conducted by the Labor Board. B&O-Clks. Decision
No. 872.
Dispute regarding alleged violation of Rule 66 of the Clerks' National
Agreement. No facts given. Case withdrawn and file closed. C&A-Clks.
Decision No. 908.
Dispute regarding proper application of Rule 49 of the Clerks National
Agreement to certain employees engaged in handling baggage and mail
Decision-At the hearing conducted by the Board, the employees modified
their request and asked that an hourly rate of pay be established for the
positions in question. It appears that the case has not been handled in con-
ference between the employees and the carrier on the same basis as it was
presented to the Board, and furthermore, that the employees and the carrier
have not made a check of the duties of the positions involved to determine
the extent to which the service performed requires continuous application
or is of an intermittent character and the dispute is, therefore, remanded
to the employees and, the carrier for conference upon the request of the
employees presented at the hearing, and for a joint check to determine the
extent to which the service performed requires continuous application or
is intermittent in character. SJUD-Clks. Decision No. 929.
Question as to application of rules 21 and 27 of the Clerks National Agree-
ment in connection with abolishing position of car service clerk at certain
point-no facts given. Case withdrawn by employees and file closed. LV—
Clks. Decision No. 936.
Claim of clerk for pay for time worked on certain day in accordance
with Rule 50 (reporting for duty and not used) of the Clerks' National
156
Agreement-no facts given. Case withdrawn by parties at interest and file
closed. PM-Clks. Decision No. 944.
4. Express Employees.
Question whether certain baggage and express agents are employees of
railroad company and governed by provisions of Clerks' National Agreement
or employees of Express Company and governed by Express Employees' Agree-
ment, or employees of both and governed by both agreements. Decided that
such men are employees of Express Company and should be governed by
Sup. 19 to G. O. 27, Express Employees' National Agreement, and Decision 3
of Labor Board. LA&SL-Clerks. Decision No. 86.
Claim that reassignment of work and readjustment of rates of pay of cer-
tain positions was in conflict with Rule 91 of Express Employees' Agreement.
Decision-Position of Company sustained. ARECo-Clerks. Decision No.
127.
Where railroad agent is allowed a flat sum by Express Company to handle
its transfer business and pay salary of such employees as he deems necessary,
and which employees are engaged by, report to and paid directly by the agent,
claim is made by Clerks' organization that a clerk so employed is in fact an
employee of the Express Company, and that such position comes within the
scope of the Clerks' National Agreement and Decision 3 of Labor Board.
Decision-Claim denied. ARECo-Clerks. Decision No. 184.
Dispute as to proper classification of certain express messenger runs, em-
ployees contending that the runs in question are turnaround runs and the
messengers thereon should be paid in accordance with Rule 76 of the national
agreement covering Express employees. Decision-Claim denied. ARECo—
Clks. Decision No. 240.
Question whether abolition of positions of second messengers and creation
of positions of helpers on certain express runs is in violation of Rule 91 of the
national agreement, employees contending that duties and responsibilities of
helpers are identical with those of the second messengers, and that the change
in title was made for purpose of reducing rate of pay, which is in violation of
rule referred to. Decision-Contention of employees denied. ARECo-Clerks.
Decision No. 281.
Question as to whether position of assistant superintendent, vehicle service,
comes within the scope of agreement as defined in Article I thereof. Decision-
Position in question does not come within scope of agreement. ARECO-
Clks. Decision No. 294.
Dispute in connection with application Rule 79 of national agreement to
position in the regional accounting department, employees contending that
Rule 79, which provides that positions (not employees) shall be rated, super-
sedes the provision of Supplement 19 to G. O. 27 governing rates for inex-
perienced employees, and that the employee involved, although having less
than one year's experience, should have received the full rate of the position
which he was filling. Decision-Claim of employees denied. ARECO-Clks.
Decision No. 297.
Claim that employee who is employed only "part time" should have received
an increase of 16 cents per hour from effective date of Decision No. 3. Carrier
states employee in question was attending school and was employed on an
hourly basis for short periods of time, and contends he is specifically excepted
from provisions of agreement under Exception (a), Rule 1, Article I. Deci-
sion-Claim of employees denied. ARECo-Clerks. Decision No. 298.
Where certain employees were required to work on specified holidays, but
later given a day off in lieu thereof, claim is made that under the agreement
they are entitled to extra day's pay for work performed on such holidays.
Decision-Claim sustained. ARECo-Clks. Decision No. 305.
Where rates of pay of certain positions were increased by carrier, claim
is made that as the increases in the rates of the positions in question were not
the result of negotiations of a general character, that such changes constituted
new positions which should be bulletined in accordance with Rule 10 of the
agreement. Carrier contends that these increases were made in conjunction
with general increases granted employees in express service throughout the
157
country where economic conditions made increases necessary, that no protest
has been made by the clerks' organization with reference to the increases
nor any application received from any employee in the office for the positions
increased, and that to comply with the employees' request would require bulle-
tining thousands of positions in express service which were affected by the
general increases made during the early part of the year 1920. Decision-
Records of Labor Board show that during the period January to August, 1920,
general increases were granted to express employees throughout the country
for the purpose of retaining in service employees who were being attracted to
more remunerative employment elsewhere. It further appears that positions
involved were increased in the month of June, 1920, and no protest filed with
carrier in regard to bulletining the positions increased until October of that
year. Decision-Request of employees is therefore denied. ARECo-Clerks.
Decision No. 360.
Where two employees who were out of service account reduction in force
filed application for position newly created in another seniority district and
placed on bulletin in accordance with rules and to which a junior employee
from another point was assigned, claim is made that the senior applicant should
have been given preference to the position. Carrier contends that only obli-
gation on their part with respect to the appointment was to give employees
preference over non-employees, and this requirement was fulfilled. Decision-
The employees admit that none of the employees referred to in the dispute
held seniority rights in the seniority district in which the position in question
was posted. The employee assigned to the position had previously held a posi-
tion in the carrier's service at another station, which was abolished upon estab-
lishment of the district accounting bureau at the point in question. Claim of
employees is therefore denied. ARECo-Clerks. Decision No. 362.
Question as to whether certain position in express office classified as clerk
and stenographer is included within the scope of the express employees' agree-
ment, as defined in Rule 1, Article I, thereof. Employees contend that in the
office in question there are employed, in addition to the chief clerk, a secretary
to the superintendent, a payroll clerk, two miscellaneous clerks and two
stenographers, and that under the agreement there should be only two personal
office-force positions in said office, viz., chief clerk and one private stenog-
rapher, and that the duties of the position in question, consisting of checking
payroll accounts, are not of a confidential nature which could be construed to
come within the term "personal office force." Decision-Board decides that
the position in question does not come within the scope of the agreement
referred to, and claim of the employees is denied. AREĈo-Clerks. Decision
No. 370.
Question as to proper application of national agreement to certain em-
ployees paid on a daily basis. Employees contend that the daily rate should
be multiplied by 365 and divided by 306. Decision-Claim denied. ARE-
Clerks. Decision No. 652.
Dispute with reference to proper compensation for an employee required to
perform extra service on train on which there was no regular express messen-
ger equipment. This employee was paid the helpers' rate of pay, but contends
that he was performing the regular duties of a messenger and is entitled to
the messenger's rate of pay. Decision-Claim denied. ARE-Clerks. Deci-
sion No. 662.
Claim that certain employee classified and paid as waybill writer was en-
gaged in billing of freight and performing work similar to that performed
by employees classified and paid as waybill clerks, and that this employee
should be reimbursed for difference between rate of pay she received as way-
bill writer and rate of pay she would have received as waybill clerk during
the period of her employment. Decision-Claim of employees is denied. ARE
-Clerks. Decision No. 688.
Question as to (1) whether position of stable foreman at certain point
comes within the scope of the national agreement governing express employees,
and (2) proper compensation under the agreement for two employees engaged
as hostlers at the same point. Employees contend that position of stable.
foreman comes within the scope of the agreement and should be given a
158
regular assignment as required by the rules and that the assigned working
hours (7 a. m. to 12 noon and 4 p. m. to 7 p. m.) of the two hostlers are in
conflict with Rule 45 of the agreement, which provides for 8 hours' work
within a spread of 9 hours. Decision-Evidence before the Board shows that
the stable foreman in question is in full charge of the stable and has the
authority to employ and dismiss employees under his jurisdiction. In the case
of the hostlers it appears that when Supplement 19 to G. O. 27, effective May
1, 1919, was issued they were placed on a straight 8-hour basis, but after
working on this basis for some little time they voluntarily requested the stable
foreman to restore their previous hours of service, which were 8 hours within
a spread of 12, in order that they might have the benefit of a noontime siesta
to conform with the custom of certain classes of laborers in the territory in
which they were employed, and an agreement was drawn up and signed by
them under the terms of which they have specifically expressed a preference
for the hours of service which were in effect at the time this controversy
arose. Request of employees is therefore denied. ARE-Clks. Decision
No. 700.
Where at certain point the express agent is allowed a flat sum per month
in addition to his commission, in consideration of which he furnishes suitable
help to handle the express business on shuttle trains between certain points,
employees contend that payment of a flat sum to this agent for the purpose
of maintaining shuttle service is not in accordance with the spirit and intent of
the agreement. Carrier takes position that they were unable to secure any
applicants when vacancies on this one run were bulletined and that it was
deemed expedient and conducive to the best interests of the service to have
the contract agent perform the service and employ any additional help necessary
in connection therewith, and claim, therefore, that the employee on this
shuttle train is not a bona fide employee of the express company and is not
subject to the provisions of Decision No. 3 or any other decision or order
affecting working conditions of employees in express service. Decision-
Position of carrier is sustained. ARE-Clks. Decision No. 701.
Dispute with reference to proper compensation for employees engaged as
attendants on trains on which there were no regular express messengers. The
employees contend that while they were performing this service they were in
full charge of the shipments in their care, and should, therefore, be paid the
express messengers' rate. Carrier states that these men were simply acting
as attendants; that they did not perform any work analogous to that of
messengers, except to carry waybills and remain with the car to protect it in
the event of its being cut out of the train. In other words, they were per-
forming guard duty and were properly paid in accordance with Rule 73,
Section (c) of the agreement. Decision-Claim of employees denied. ARE-
Clks. Decision No. 728.
Dispute with reference to changing pay days from weekly to semi-monthly
basis for vehicle employees. Decision The Board decides that the payment
of salaries to the employees involved in this dispute on a semi-monthly basis
is not in violation of any rule, order, or agreement affecting the wages and
working conditions of employees in the carrier's service. Claim of the em-
ployees is, therefore, denied. ARE-Drivers, etc. Decision No. 864.
Where starting time of assignment of two employees was changed from
12:00 midnight to 1:30 a. m., claim is made by employees that such change
was in violation of Rule 53 of the national agreement, which provides that
where three consecutive shifts are worked no shift will have a starting time.
after 12:00 o'clock midnight and before 5:00 a. m. Carrier takes position that
this rule applies to employees who work in three-shift positions; that the em-
ployees referred to are not so assigned, and that, therefore, the action of the
carrier in changing the assignment was not in violation of said rule. Decision-
Evidence shows that platform men at the station named are not assigned to
three-shift positions as referred to in Rule 53 but that the service performed
by said employees is continuous throughout the 24-hour period, there being
from one to three platform men on duty at all times. Position of the em-
ployees sustained. ARE-Clks. Decision No. 881.
Question as to whether the position of chief clerk in Regional Accounting
159.
Department at certain point should be included within the scope of the
National Agreement covering express employees, and bulletined in accordance
with the provisions thereof. Decision-At hearing held by the Board it
developed that the carrier contends that the position in question was abolished
in August, 1921, while the employees contend that it has not been abolished,
and the Board can not render a decision on this case until the employees and
the carrier jointly determine whether or not the position was abolished.
ARE-Clks. Decision No 933.
5. Signal Employees.
Claim that certain employees, now classified and paid as helpers, should be
reclassified and paid as assistant signalmen or assistant signal maintainers, in
accordance with Section 3, Article I of National Signalmen's Agreement.
Decision-Board feels intent of Section 3 was to establish a reasonable number
of positions of assistant signalmen or assistant signal maintainers, which em-
ployees would be in training for positions of signalmen or signal maintainers
during four-year period referred to therein, and suggests that management and
representatives of employees confer in effort to reach agreement as to estab-
lishment of such positions, such reclassification to be made affecting positions
now existing and shall not operate to increase the force. CCC&StL-Sig.
Decision No. 226.
Question as to rules in Signalmen's National Agreement applicable to cer-
tain signalmen who, while assigned to regular eight-hour day on hourly basis
with regular starting and quitting time, are required at least once a week to
go out on road to distribute or assist in distribution of batteries to various
signals over their territory, returning to home station same day. On such
occasions employees frequently consume several hours traveling and waiting
in addition to their regular day for which they receive no extra compensa-
tion except for actual service performed. Claim is made for continuous time
from time required to report to time they return to home station whether wait-
ing or traveling, in accordance with Section 17, Article II of the agreement.
Decision-Board decides that Sections 18 and 20, Article II of the agreement
referred to, which have reference to pay of men sent out on road, are applicable
to the service in question. SP-Sig. Decision No. 293.
Where signal department helper was assigned temporarily for a period of
several weeks to fill position of assistant signal maintainer after which time
he was permanently continued in said position, question arises as to rate of
pay applicable during the temporary assignment. Employee contends that
under Section 23, Article II of the agreement he should receive the rate of the
position while the carrier contends he should be paid according to his ex-
perience in line with Section 2, Article V of the same agreement. Decision-
Based upon its construction of the rules referred to the Board decides that a
signal department helper assigned temporarily to fill position of assistant signal
maintainer should have received the same rate of pay allowed the employee
permanently assigned to the position, but that when permanent assignment was
made the rate established by Section 2, Article V of the agreement should
apply. NYC-Sig. Decision No. 356.
Question as to whether (1) Addendum 2 to Decision No. 119 provides for
payment of pro rata rate for regular and special assignments on Sundays and
holidays and (2) Addendum 2 affects payment under the call rule as embodied
in the national agreement. Employees contend that Addendum 2 to Decision
No. 119 makes no mention of Sunday and holiday work but has reference only
to overtime after regular hours, and in view of the fact that question as to
payment of Sunday and holiday time was one of the disputed rules submitted
to the Labor Board for decision, the national agreement should apply until
the Labor Board renders a decision on this question. In regard to payment
for call, employees take position that until a decision is rendered thereon the
national agreement should also apply and three hours should be the minimum
payment. Carrier takes position that as no overtime was allowed for Sunday
and holiday work prior to Federal control it is proper, in accordance with
Addendum 2 to Decision No. 119, to pay pro rata for such service until the
Board disposes of the question; and that in regard to the call rule, that in
160
De-
allowing a minimum of two hours at pro rata rate they are complying with
the meaning and intent of Decision No. 119 and Addendum 2 thereto.
cision-(1) Under provisions of Addendum 2 to Decision No. 119 pro rata
rate shall be paid for regular and special assignments of signal department
employees on Sunday and holidays, except classes of employees which have
reached agreements on overtime rates or who by agreement or practice were
receiving a rate higher than pro rata prior to the promulgation of any general
order of the U. S. Railroad Administration relating to wages and working
conditions; (2) inasmuch as the call rule referred to specifies an allowance
of "two hours at overtime rates," the overtime rate under provisions of Adden-
dum 2 to Decision No. 119 shall be applied. These decisions shall apply with
the understanding that if the rules promulgated by the Board are more favor-
able to the employees' adjustment in compensation due will be made by the
carrier. NYCRR-Sig. Decision No. 407.
Dispute in regard to right of carrier to make certain changes in its signal
organization resulting in the demotion of certain assistant signalmen to
helpers. Decision-Board is of the opinion that the carrier was acting within
its rights and that the classification and seniority provisions of the agreement
not only permit, but specifically provide for classifications and rates of pay
based upon the character of work performed and so long as the rate of pay
is in conformity with the classification and the employees are not required to
perform work that comes under a classification carrying a higher rate, and
the seniority provisions of the agreement are observed, there is no just cause
for complaint. On the other hand, however, the Board is of the opinion that
better results would be obtained if the carrier conferred with the duly author-
ized representatives of the employees prior to placing in effect a re-organiza-
tion of forces such as occurred in this case. The Board decides, therefore,
that the carrier has not violated the provisions of the agreement provided the
employees in question are not assigned to or required to perform the work of
maintainers or assistant maintainers; further that the demoted employees shall
be credited with the full-time service as assistant signal maintainers and rated
on that basis when again assigned as assistant maintainers. B&O-Sig. De-
cision No. 709.
Claim that certain employee now classified and rated as signal maintainer
should be reclassified and rated as leading maintainer in accordance with
Section 3, Article V of the Signalmen's National Agreement. Decision-
Board decides that this employee is not a leading maintainer within the mean-
ing and intent of the agreement and claim is, therefore, denied. NYNH&H-
Sig. Decision No. 800.
6. Firemen and Oilers.
Claim that certain stationary firemen paid on a monthly basis and who
were allowed an increase of 13c per hour based on 204 hours, in accordance
with Section 2, Article 8, of Decision No. 2, should be paid on the hourly
basis and receive 13c increase for every hour worked as per Rule 7 of the
Firemen's and Oilers' National Agreement. Decision-Interpretation 1 to
Decision No. 2 clearly outlines the Board's position in connection with appli-
cation of increases to monthly-rated employees and shall govern in this dispute.
T&OC-AFofRRW. Decision No. 349.
Dispute in regard to payment of Sunday and holiday service in the steam
power plant at certain point, employees claiming that the carrier was not
complying with the national agreement covering firemen and oilers nor with
Addendum 2 to Decision No. 119. At the oral hearing conducted by the Board
certain matters not specifically mentioned in the employees' submission were
injected, and it also developed that the supporting evidence appended to em-
ployees' submission referred to several questions and did not cover any specific
complaint or dispute. It was therefore suggested by the examiner that the
submission be redrawn in order that it might clearly set forth the employees'
contention and that such redraft be handled as a new submission. Decision-
Case is therefore considered closed and if further submission is made in con-
nection therewith evidence already submitted will be considered in conjunction.
161
•
with the resubmission if the parties to the dispute so desire. Sou Pac-Fire&
Oilers. Decision No. 520.
Dispute in regard to interpretation of Rules 5 and 7 of the Firemen's and
Oilers' Agreement. Carrier construes these rules and the interpretation
placed thereon by the Director General to mean that the employees carried on
a monthly salary should be placed on a 26-working-day basis and allowed pro
rata time as overtime for Sundays and holidays. Decision-Board does not
concur with construction placed by carrier upon interpretation used by the
Director General regarding application of Rule 5 and decides that up to the
effective date of Addendum 2 to Decision No. 119 the monthly rate shall be
predicated upon 306 days per year and additional pay allowed for time re-
quired to work on Sundays and holidays. Subsequent to July 1, 1921, the
provisions of Addendum 2 shall apply unless an agreement on this question
has been reached, in which event the rules so agreed upon shall apply. D&RG
-MofW. Decision No. 595.
NATIONAL AGREEMENTS. Abrogation of
See "Decision 119 and interpretations thereto."
NEGOTIATIONS. Joint handling of
Question as to whether Decision 119 limits or restricts an individual
carrier and its employees from going into concert with another carrier and
the duly authorized representative of its employees or any number of other
carriers and the duly authorized representatives of the employees for the pur-
pose of jointly conducting conferences on matters referred back by this deci-
sion. Decision-No. Int. 1 to Decision No. 119.
NEGROES IN TRAIN
SERVICE-DISPLACEMENT OF BY
WHITES. See "Colored Train Employees-Use of as Flagmen."
NEVADA NORTHERN RAILWAY.
Question whether increases specified in Art. IV of Decision 2 covering
shop employees are applicable to such employees of the Nevada Northern
Railway Company, and, if so, to what rates shall such increases be added.
Decision-Yes; should be added to rates in effect on that road at 12:01 a. m.,
March 1, 1920, and applied to all employees specified in the article referred
to. Int. 20 to Decision No. 2.
NEW POSITIONS OR RUNS. Bulletining and filling. See "Vacancies-
Bulletining and filling."
NEW RULES. Request for. See "Rules and Working Conditions-Re-
quests for."
NEW TYPES OF LOCOMOTIVES-RATES FOR. See "Engines-
Rates for New Types of."
NOTICES. Posting of.
Dispute regarding posting of notices of interest to employees as provided
under Rule 75 of Clerks' National Agreement; carrier contending only such
notices as it approves may be posted, while employees contend that any notices
which may be considered of interest to the employees may be posted. De-
cision-Posting of notices of lodge or committee meetings and social activities,
and verbatim copies of decisions and interpretations issued by Labor Board
covers intent of rule referred to. LV-Clerks. Decision No. 133.
OFFICE BOYS.
Application of increases under Decision 2 to. See “Decision 2-Applica-
tion of."
OIL HOUSE MEN.
Claim that position of night oil house man at certain point comes within
scope of National M. of W. Agreement and that overtime worked by the
162
occupant of that position should be paid for under Sections (a-1) and (a-8),
Art. V, of said agreement. Claim denied. MC-MofW. Decision No. 88.
OPERATING RULES.
Request of employees that Rule 3 of special instructions in current time
card governing train operation be abolished. This rule provides that all trains,
except first-class trains and those made first class by running on train-order
schedules, will approach all stations, water tanks, and coaling stations under
control and so proceed until track is plainly seen to be clear, responsibility for
collision to rest with the following or incoming train; this will not relieve
train and enginemen from protecting train at such stops as provided in Rules
86 and 99. Employees have requested that this rule be abolished and that
trains stopping at stations, water tanks, and coaling stations, not located
within yard limits, be protected by that part of standard Rule 99 which pro-
vides that when a train stops under circumstances in which it may be over-
taken by another train, the flagman must go back immediately with flagman's
signals a sufficient distance to insure full protection, placing two torpedoes,
etc. Carrier contends that promulgation of operating rules is solely a man-
agerial question and if the management of the railroad is to be held responsible
for its safe, efficient and economical operation it must have the right to make
rules which it feels will result in that operation, and that the rule in question
is one which the management decides as proper to operate under. Decision-
Position of carrier is sustained. VirRy-E&F. Decision No. 488.
ORDER OF RAILROAD TELEGRAPHERS.
Petition of, for rehearing on Decision 2. Denied. ORT. Decision No. 17.
ORDERS, AGREEMENTS, ETC., OF U. S. R. R. ADMINISTRA-
TRATION.
Application of. See "Railroad Administration-Rulings, Orders, etc., of."
Abrogation of. See "Decision No. 119."
ORGANIZATION REPRESENTATION.
See "Representation Rights."
ORGANIZATION REPRESENTATIVES-ISSUANCE OF FREE
TRANSPORTATION TO. See "Transportation-Issuance of
Free."
OUTLYING POINTS. Meaning of
Question as to meaning of term "outlying points" as used in deadhead rule
reading in part, "When deadheading to relieve men at outlying points who
obtain leave of absence of their own volition, one-half pay will be allowed,
except in case of sickness, when full pay will be allowed." Committee con-
tends "outlying point" is an intermediate point between terminals, while road
contends that all deadheading brought about through employees obtaining
leave of absence of their own volition should be paid for at one-half pay.
Case dismissed by Board, requirements of Transportation Act not having been
complied with. N&W-C. Decision No. 82.
OVERPAYMENTS.
Claim of engineers and firemen for refund of moneys deducted from their
pay to cover alleged overpayments. Sustained. D&SL-EFC&T. Decisions
Nos. 21, 22 and 23.
OVERTIME.
1. Road Train and Enginemen.
(a) Passenger Service.
(b) Freight Service.
(c) Yard Service.
2. Maintenance of Way Forces.
3. Stationary Engine and Boiler Room Employees.
163
4. Miscellaneous.
5. Shop Crafts
6. Telegraph Forces
7. Dispatchers
8. Clerical Forces
9. Signal Forces
10. Supervisory Forces
11. Express Employees.
1. Road Train and Enginemen.
(a) Passenger Service.
Shall the overtime rate for engineers in passenger service, which in some
instances was greater than one-eighth of the daily rate, be increased in the
same proportion as the daily rate under Decision 2? Decision-No; rate
shall not be less than one-eighth of increased daily rate, preserving former
higher flat overtime rates. L&N-E&F. Int. 4. IC-E. Int. 14 to Decision
No. 2.
Where there exists flat hourly overtime rates in passenger service, claim
is made that the overtime rate should be increased under Decision 2 in the
same proportion as the daily rate; that is, one-fifth of the increase granted
on the daily rate, or 16c. Case withdrawn, parties at interest agreeing on
settlement. OWRR&N-E&F. Decision No. 96.
(b) Freight Service.
Prior to G. O. 27 payments for overtime, terminal delay and switching at
terminals on through freight trains were computed on basis of one-eighth of
trip rate, or mileage of trip. Under Sup. 16 trip basis was abolished but more.
favorable overtime basis retained. Under Sup. 25 this more favorable overtime
basis was abolished and overtime was computed at three-sixteenths of mile-
age rate for one hundred miles, but for terminal delay and switching at
terminals before overtime begins, the rate on former basis of one-eighth of
trip, being higher, was retained. In the application of Decision 2 the new
rate based on one hundred miles, being in excess of former rate, was established
for such payments. Employees. contend these arbitrary payments should con-
tinue to be applied on basis of the mileage of the trip rather than on basic day
of one hundred miles. Denied. RF&P_C&T. Decision No. 56.
Where rule provides that when a sufficient number of men have been
assigned to certain pool runs, no emergency trainmen will be put on, but
trainmen already assigned, accumulated at other end of run, will be deadheaded
at company's expense when needed; or if emergency arises necessitating use
of emergency trainmen, and layover of the assigned trainmen at terminals
exceeds eighteen hours, they will either be deadheaded or paid overtime for
such layover, claim is made by certain conductors for overtime for time so
held, alleging use of emergency crews in violation of the rules. Board with-
out jurisdiction, matter occurring before passage of Transportation Act.
N&W—C—(a) and (b). Decision No. 83.
(c) Yard Service.
Where yard brakeman, after completing his regular shift, is required to
continue on succeeding shift, account shortage of men, and works thereon
for two hours and forty-five minutes before being relieved, claim is made for
one day's pay at time and one-half, in addition to pay for his regular shift.
Board without jurisdiction, matter having occurred before passage of Trans-
portation Act. N&W-Tr. Decision No. 73.
Where no fixed number of men known as "hump riders" are assigned to crew
and it has been practice to call such men during regular shift as needed, using
all riders eight hours each so that in course of day the men called during a
shift will lap over and finish their day with the regular crew of the next shift
and for which they are paid a day of eight hours for such service; claim is
made that under such conditions a minimum day at pro rata rates for service
performed on first shift and minimum day at time and one-half for service
performed on second shift, account working under two different yard con-
164
ductors, even though only eight hours continuous service was performed.
Claim denied; payment made is just and reasonable. N&W-Tr. Decision
No. 69.
2. Maintenance of Way Forces.
Claim that position of night oil-house man at certain point comes within
scope of National M. of W. Agreement and that overtime worked by the
occupant of that position should be paid for under Sections (a-1) and (a-8),
Art. V, of said agreement. Claim denied. MC-MofW.
MC-MofW. Decision No. 88.
Question as to proper application of Sec. 3, Art. XIII, Decision 2, to
monthly rated employees, employees contending that 204 hours, when worked
out, establishes a 306-day year for monthly rated employees, and therefore such
employees, when required to work on Sundays or the seven specified holidays,
should be paid therefor at the overtime rates in addition to their monthly rate,
or be paid as many hours per month as their assignment requires in each case
times the hourly increase. Decision-Int. 1 to Decision 2 clearly outlines the
intent of that decision in applying increases to monthly rated employees in
M. of W. Dept., and should, therefore, govern in this dispute. MP-MofW.
Decision No. 114.
Question as to proper method of computing hourly and overtime rates for
monthly rated employees in M. of W. department. Decision-Divide yearly
salary (12 times the monthly rate) by eight times the number of working days
during calendar year on which days overtime is not allowed for work per-
formed as part of employees' regular assignment. Decision 2 did not change
agreement or practices relative to payment of overtime to monthly rated em-
ployees. L&N-MofW. Decision No. 130.
Question as to whether overtime for extra-gang foremen shall be paid for
under the provisions of Section (a-7) or Section (a-8) of Art. V of the Na-
tional M. of W. Agreement. Decision-Gang foremen in question properly
come under and should be paid in accord with Sec. (a-7) of Art. V. NOT
&M-MofW. Decision No. 180.
Where foremen, while not required to report for duty on Sundays, are re-
quired to keep their whereabouts known to their superior officer and respond
promptly when called, claim is made that as they are required to remain in their
respective territories on Sundays subject to call, they should receive pay there-
for. Decision-Claim denied. BR&P-MofW. Decision No. 210.
Question as to whether supervisory employees covered by the provisions
of Section 8, Article V, of the National Maintenance of Way Agreement
shall be allowed overtime for service performed after 8 hours, such as making
up payrolls, time books, material reports, accident reports, or any other reports.
these employees are called upon to make after 8 hours have been worked.
Decision-Employees in question, in accordance with the rule referred to,
are not entitled to overtime for the performance of services mentioned. Penna
-MofW. Decision No. 411..
Question whether monthly-rated foremen should be allowed overtime for
services rendered on Sundays and holidays, in addition to their regular monthly
salary. Decision-Claim of employees denied. MP-MofW.
MP-MofW. Decision No.
209. Vir Decision No. 233. UP-Decision No. 330. IC-Decision No. 547.
Question as to application of Sections (a-7) and (a-8), Article V, of the
National Maintenance of Way Agreement to extra gang laborers. During
the winter extra gangs were employed for purpose of removing the snow
from the right of way, which gangs in some instances were worked with the
regular sectionmen. These men were paid pro rata rates for the ninth and
tenth hours of continuous service under Section (a-7) of Article V, but
employees claim that they are entitled to compensation at rate of time and
one-half under Section (a-8) of Article V. Decision-Claim denied. C&NW
-MofW. Decision No. 522.
Question as to whether section foremen who are paid a monthly rate
on a 313-day basis shall be allowed extra compensation for work performed
on holidays, employees claim that under Section (e), Article V of National
Maintenance of Way Agreement, the number of working days constituting
a working year are 306 days for foremen, and that under Section (a-5) of
165
Article V, when foremen are required to work on Sundays or any of the
seven specified holidays they should be paid at the pro rata hourly rate
in addition to their monthly rate. Carrier states that when the National
Agreement became effective the 313-day basis was established for section.
foremen and they were allowed extra pay for Sunday work, other than
such work as making out reports, posting time books, attending staff meet-
ings and similar duties not directly connected with the actual work of their
gangs and that this basis has been continued. Decision-Claim of employees
denied. Sou Pac-MofW. Decision No. 546.
Question as to whether certain supervisory foremen in the Maintenance
of Way service should receive extra compensation when required to super-
vise their gangs on Sundays and holidays. Decision-Board sustains posi-
tion of carrier in the manner in which Section (h) of Article V of the
National Maintenance of Way Agreement has been applied up to the effective
date of Addendum 2 to Decision No. 119 (July 1, 1921), from which date
Addendum 2 or any agreement that may have been subsequently entered into
shall be made applicable. In event that no agreement has been reached Sec-
tion (h), Article V of Decision No. 501, effective December 16, 1921, shall
apply in the manner provided therein. For all service considered as over-
time for which extra compensation is provided the hourly rate of pay for
such service shall be predicated upon 204 hours per month in accordance
with Section (e), Article V of Decision No. 501, regardless of the hours
or days that may be considered as the regular assignment of monthly
rated supervisory forces. T&P-MofW. Decision No. 593.
Question as to proper application of Section (a-7), Article V of the
National Maintenance of Way Agreement, the carrier in question making
no distinction between temporary and permanent gangs, paying all alike—
pro rata rates for the ninth and tenth hours. Decision-Board calls attention
to Decision No. 501 and decides that the provisions thereof shall apply to
the dispute in question. L&NE-MofW. Decision No. 600.
Does Addendum 2 to Decision 119, cancel overtime of employees in the
Maintenance of Way Department authorized by the U. S. Railroad Adminis-
tration where no agreement was reached in conference on rules establishing
assignment of hours that constitute a day's work. Decision-Addendum 2
to Decision No. 119, was intended, to supersede overtime conditions established
by or under the authority of the U. S. Railroad Administration and the
provisions thereof shall be applied in the manner prescribed therein. KCM&O
MofW. Decision No. 602.
Question as to application of overtime under Addendum 2 to Decision No.
119 to Maintenance of Way employees. Decision-Interpretation 2 to Ad-
dendum 2 to Decision No. 119, covers the question in dispute. C&S-MofW.
Decision No. 644. N&W-MofW. Decision No. 645.
Shall pumpers and similar classes of employees paid under provisions
of Section (a-12), of Article V of the National Maintenance of Way Agree-
ment be paid overtime under provisions of Sections (a-7) and (a-8)
and for calls under provisions of Sections (a-9), (a-10) and (a-11) of
said agreement. Decision-No. This not to include positions excepted in
last paragraph of Section (a-12) of Article V. IllCen-MofW. Decision
No. 548.
Question as to whether pumper, paid on a monthly rate under Section
(a-12), Article V of the National Maintenance of Way Agreement, based
on a 10-hour assignment per day should be paid overtime at rate of time
and one-half for service performed in excess of his regular assignment.
Carrier holds that the monthly rate arrived at under the rule referred to
compensates this employee for all service rendered. Decision-Evidence
presented in this case does not indicate that the duties of the position in
question are such as to place same on an hourly basis in accordance with
the exception contained in the last paragraph of Section (a-12), Article
V, and contention of carrier is, therefore, sustained. AT&SF-MofW.
Decision No. 769.
Question as to whether employees who were paid time and one-half
166
after 10 hours prior to government control, which then constituted a day's
work, should be paid time and one-half after 8 hours under Addendum No.
2 to Decision No. 119. Decision-Interpretation No. 2 to Addendum No. 2
to Decision No. 119 clearly covers question in dispute and shall apply to
this case. CenRRof NJ-Mof W. Decision No. 805.
Question as to whether certain crossing watchman, paid a monthly rate
under Section (a-12), Article V of the National Maintenance of Way
Agreement, should be paid overtime at pro rata rate for ninth and tenth
hours, and time and one-half thereafter for all time worked in excess of
his regular monthly assignment. On certain days, this watchman was re-
quired to serve three hours in addition to his assignment, for which service
he was not paid an amount, in addition to his regular salary, covering his
regular monthly assignment. Decision-Section (a-12) of Article V pro-
vided for the establishment of a monthly rate to cover all services rendered,
and further provided that if the present assigned hours were increased
or decreased, the monthly rate should be adjusted. The Board does not
construe the language of this rule to prohibit the temporary assignment of
employees covered thereby to longer hours in case of emergency-this con-
dition apparently having been recognized when the rule was written. The
position of the management in connection with this case is, therefore, sus-
tained, but this decision should not be construed to permit the assignment
of employees, covered by the above rule, to longer hours for any considerable
period of time without the payment of overtime therefor, and in no case
unless an emergency exists. AT&SF-MofW. Decision No. 808.
3. Stationary Engine and Boiler Room Employees.
Question as to whether certain stationary engineers, who are monthly rated
employees and received an increase under Decision 2 based on 204 hours per
month, should be allowed overtime for service performed on Sundays and
holidays. Decision-Int. 1 to Decision 2 covers similar question as to extra
payment for service in excess of 204 hours per month, and should govern in
this dispute. TRRofStL-IUofS&OE. Decision No. 202.
Dispute in regard to interpretation of Rules 5 and 7 of the Firemen's and
Oilers' Agreement. Carrier construes these rules and the interpretation
placed thereon by the Director General to mean that the employees carried
on a monthly salary should be placed on a 26-working day basis and allowed
pro rata time as overtime for Sundays and holidays. Decision-Board does
not concur with construction placed by carrier upon Interpretation used by
the Director General regarding application of Rule 5 and decides that up to
the effective date of Addendum 2 to Decision No. 119 the monthly rate
shall be predicated upon 306 days per year and additional pay allowed for
time required to work on Sundays and holidays. Subsequent to July 1, 1921,
the provisions of Addendum 2 shall apply unless an agreement on this
question has been reached, in which event the rules so agreed upon shall
apply. D&RG-MofW. Decision No. 595.
4. Miscellaneous.
Ruling of Board authorizing as a temporary measure, pending final set-
tlement by Board of the rules question: (1) Pro rata rates for overtime, in
lieu of time and one-half, except for those classes with whom agreements have
been reached, and those classes which were receiving a higher rate than pro
rata prior to promulgation of any general order of Railroad Administration ;
(2) continuation of rules established by Railroad Administration until such
time as other rules are considered and decided; (3) Decision 119 not modified
in any respect other than above specified; (4) rules agreed upon by carrier
and employees to be effective July 1, 1921. Add. 2 to Decision No. 119.
Under Addendum No. 2 to Decision 119, question as to (a) proper compen-
sation for time worked outside of established day of eight hours, July 1 to
Aug. 15, 1921, inclusive; (b) proper compensation for time worked by hourly-
paid employees for service rendered on Sundays and designated holidays, July
1 to 15, 1921; (c) proper compensation for monthly-paid employees for service
rendered on Sundays and designated holidays, July 1 to 15, 1921. Decision-
167
(a) overtime rate specified in first paragraph Rule 6, Decision No. 222,
shall apply for time worked outside established day of eight hours, July 1
to Aug. 15, 1921; (b) second paragraph Rule 6, Decision No. 222, shall
apply for service rendered by hourly-rated employees on Sundays and
designated holidays, July 1 to Aug. 15, 1921; (c) provisions of Rule
15 of Decision No. 222 shall apply for period July 1 to August 15, 1921—ex-
cept that in each of these instances on roads and for classes of employees hav-
ing a more favorable method of payment prior to effective date of any sup-
plement to G. O. 27 promulgated by Railroad Administration, or who had
reached agreement pursuant to Decision No. 119 providing a more favorable
method of payment, the more favorable method of payment shall apply.
Employees who were compensated on a less favorable basis than outlined
shall be reimbursed to extent of any wage loss suffered for period above
mentioned. Int. 1 to Add. 2 to Decision No. 119.
Under provisions of Addendum 2 to Decision No. 119, how should overtime
apply to employees of the Maintenance of Way Department from July 1
to December 16, 1921. Decision-The pro rata overtime rate specified in par-
agraph (1) of Addendum 2 to Decision No. 119 shall apply for period July
1 to Dec. 16, 1921 (on which date Decision No. 501 became effective), except
on carriers and for classes of employees that have a more favorable method
of payment prior to effective date of any supplement to G. O. 27, or that have
reached an agreement providing a more favorable method of payment; in
either event the more favorable method of payment shall apply. Int. 2 to Add.
2 to Decision No. 119.
5. Shop Crafts.
Dispute as to just and reasonable rules relating to overtime payments and
payments for regular and emergency road service to govern shop forces on
which disagreements had been certified to the Board in conformity with
Decision 119. Decision-The seven rules set out in the decision as approved by
the Board, corresponding to the seven rules Nos. 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14 and 15
of the National Shop Agreement, are just and reasonable and shall apply,
effective August 16, 1921, to each of the carriers set out under the caption
"Parties to the dispute," except in such instances as any particular carrier
may have agreed with its employees upon one or more of said rules, in which
case, the rule or rules agreed upon by the carrier and its employees shall
apply on said road. C&NW et al-ShCfts. Decision No. 222 and Addenda
thereto.
Where employee filling second trick (3 p. m. to 11 p. m.) position as tender
repairman was laid off account reduction in force, and exercised his seniority
by accepting first trick (7 a. m. to 3:15 p. m.) position in car department,
question as to whether said employee is entitled to overtime rates for the
first shift worked in the car department under rule 13 of the national agree-
ment. Decision-Rule in question makes no distinction as to whether or not
employee is transferred at instance of carrier or of his own accord. Board
therefore decides that overtime in accordance with rule should be allowed for
the first shift of the change. CCC&StL-ShpCrf. Decision No. 353.
Dispute in regard to correct computation of overtime worked by certain
employees in the truck department at certain shop-no facts given. Decision-
Board understands that subsequent to filing this dispute an agreement has been
negotiated and consummated and that further negotiations will be conducted
with a view to disposing of this dispute. In view of this fact the case is con-
sidered closed without prejudice to the right of either party in making further
submission in connection therewith if it so desires. Pullman Co-ShpCrf.
Decision No. 440.
Dispute in regard to correct overtime rate in accordance with Rule 7 of
the National Agreement affecting overtime worked by employees in trimming
department in certain shops-no facts stated. Decision-Board understands
that subsequent to filing this dispute an agreement has been negotiated and
consummated and that further negotiations will be conducted with a view to
disposing of this dispute. In view of this fact the case is considered closed with-
out prejudice to the right of either party in making further submission in con-
nection therewith if it so desires. Pullman Co-ShpCrf. Decision No. 447,
168
Question as to proper application of Addendum 2 to Decision No. 119 to
pump repairers compensated on a monthly basis. Evidence indicates that
prior to Federal control these pump repairers were paid monthly rates cover-
ing all service rendered, and received no payment for overtime. In accord-
ance with rulings of the Railroad Administration these employees were in-
cluded in the national agreement covering shop crafts and under rule 15 there-
of their monthly rate was predicated upon 3,156 hours per year. After the
issuance of Addendum 2 to Decision No. 119 the employees were notified that
their pay would be reduced, the new rate being predicated upon 2,920 hours
per year (8 hours multiplied by 365 days). The management contends that
these men were paid no overtime prior to Federal control and Addendum 2 to
Decision No. 119 has, therefore, been properly applied. Decision-Board
decides that Interpretation No. 1 to Addendum 2 to Decision No. 119 covers
the question in dispute. N&W-ShpCrf. Decision No. 541.
Question as to proper application of Addendum 2 to Decision No. 119 to
conveyor car operators, elevator operators, car dumper operators, steam
power house operators, performing work in connection with the operation of
coal pier. Prior to Federal control these employees were compensated on a
monthly basis and received no additional payment for overtime on Sunday and
holiday service. In accordance with rulings of Railroad Administration and
the national shop agreement these employees were given the same overtime con-
ditions as shop employees, which method of payment continued in effect until
the issuance of Addendum 2 to Decision No. 119 when the Railroad management
started the practice of paying these employees pro rata rate for all overtime
in excess of the established hours of service including work performed on
Sundays and holidays. Decision-Board decides that Interpretation 1 to Ad-
dendum 2 to Decision No. 119 covers the question in dispute. N&W-ShpCrf.
Decision No. 542.
Question as to application of item No. 1 of Addendum 2 to Decision No.
119 to certain car inspectors. Prior to Federal control time and one-half was
paid after 9 hours to employees in certain classes of work in several crafts,
while employees in other classes of work in the same crafts received no over-
time. For example, carmen in shops on repairs and construction received time
and one half for 9 hours while carmen working as inspectors in train yards
on interchange tracks and outlying points received no overtime. Carrier con-
tends that it is privileged under Addendum 2 to pay car inspectors pro rata
rate for overtime. Decision-Board decides that Interpretation 1 to Addendum
2 to Decision No. 119 covers the question in dispute. HV--ShpCrf. Deci-
sion No. 543.
Question as to whether under Addendum 2 to Decision No. 119 (1) rate of
time and one-half should be paid after bulletined hours-now 8-or after same.
number of hours after which time and one-half was paid prior to issuance of
G. O. 27 and (2) overtime, Sunday and holiday conditions should be the same
for all employees covered by the present federated crafts agreement regardless
of the difference existing in such conditions prior to G. O. 27. Decision-
Board decides that Interpretation No. 1 to Addendum 2 to Decision No. 119
covers the question in dispute. B&M-ShpCrf. Decision No. 544.
Question as to (1) whether the overtime provisions contained in agree-
ment prior to general orders of the U. S. Railroad Administration go into
effect July 1, 1921, and remain in effect until final action and decision of the
Board as to overtime rates and provisions, or overtime provisions of the
National Agreement remain in effect on July 1, 1921; and (2) what consti-
tutes classes of employees as referred to in section 1, Addendum 2, with respect
to overtime provisions. Decision-Board decides that Interpretation 1 to Ad-
dendum 2 to Decision No. 119 covers questions in dispute. CRI&P-ShpCrf.
Decision No. 545.
Question as to whether under Addendum 2 to Decision No. 119 rule 7 of
the National Shop Agreement providing for payment of minimum of 5 hours
for any overtime after ninth hour of continuous service should continue in
effect, or whether the rule in effect prior to Federal control, which provided
for payment of any overtime after the basic day at rate of time and one-half
except for first 40 minutes or less for which one hour was allowed, should
169
apply. Decision-Addendum No. 2 to Decision No. 119 was not intended to
cover rule 7 of the National Agreement and provisions of this rule should,
therefore, have remained in force and effect until August 16, 1921, the effective
date of Decision No. 222. N&W-ShCrf. Decision No. 585.
Question as to whether punitive rates should be paid after 8 hours service
or the same number of hours after which it was paid prior to Federal control
pending further decisions of the Labor Board. Decision-Interpretation
2 to Addendum 2 to Decision No. 119 covers the question in dispute. B&M-
Knights of Labor. Decision No. 651.
Under provisions of Rule 6, Addendum 6 to Decision No. 222, shall time
and one-half be allowed an employee who is required to work on Saturday,
when the shops are bulletined to work Monday to Friday, inclusive?
Decision-Yes, this is time outside of bulletin hours, and should, therefore,
be compensated on the basis of time and one-half.´HV—ShCrf. Decision
No. 890.
Question as to proper application of Rule 13 of the National Shop Agree-
ment to employees changing shifts where a period of lapse of service of 24
hours or over intervenes, the positions on which these employees were en-
gaged being abolished on Saturday, and these employees assigned to other
service starting the following Monday. Decision-Board decides upon the
particular question in dispute that the shifts to which the employees were
transferred were not maintained on Sundays, and that, therefore, the time
intervening between the changing of the shifts should not have operated to
deprive the employees of the overtime rate provided in Rule 13, and that they
should be reimbursed accordingly. WM-ShCrf. Decision No. 920.
6. Telegraph Forces.
At a three trick point, due to illness of second trick operator and inability
to secure relief man, it became necessary to temporarily change the assigned
hours (8 a. m. to 4 p. m.) of first trick operator to from 3 p. m. to midnight,
and employees are contending that under paragraph (d), Art. III, of schedule,
providing that employees will not be required to suspend work during regular
hours to absorb overtime, this operator is entitled to pay for regular assign-
ment and in addition to compensation under overtime and call rule for service
performed outside of regular assignment. Decision-Claim denied. LA&SL—
Telgrs. Decision No. 267.
Claim of telegraph operator, regularly assigned to third trick, 11 p. m. to
7 a. m., for pay under overtime and call rule, in addition to pay of regular
assignment, account required to work the second trick-3 to 11 p. m.-in lieu
of his regular shift for three consecutive days. Employee was paid at straight
time rate of the second shift. Decision-Claim denied. DUT-Telgrs.
Decision No. 302.
Account of illness of employee assigned to third trick position at certain
point telegrapher on second trick, who was regularly assigned to service from
4 p. m. to midnight, was required to work third trick position instead of his own
for period of five days and paid therefor at the straight time rate of the third
trick position. Claim is made for compensation at rate of time and one-half
for service performed on third trick position. Decision-Claim denied. SP—
Tel. Decision No. 376.
Claim of telegrapher not regularly assigned to Sunday service for compen-
sation under the overtime and call rules of agreement for work performed on
Sunday in place of another employee. This telegrapher was required to work
in place of wire chief, who laid off account serious illness in his family, from
4 p. m. to midnight and was paid for such service at the straight time rate of
the position which he was filling. Decision-Claim denied. CRI&PRy—Tel.
Decision No. 374.
Question as to right of carrier to change the payment for overtime from
a punitive to a pro rata basis effective as of July 1, 1921, covering employees
in the station, tower, and telegraph service. Decision-In view of Interpre-
tation No. 4 to Decision No. 119 the Board decides that the carrier shall not
be permitted to make the change referred to. Erie-Tel. Decision No. 553.
170
7. Dispatchers.
Where, on account of sudden illness of second trick dispatcher, first trick
dispatcher was required to remain on duty four additional hours and third
trick dispatcher to report four hours in.advance of his regular assignment and
continue on regular assignment, claim is made by these dispatchers for overtime
worked in excess of regular assignment. Dispatcher who was off sick on day
in question was allowed full day's pay. Decision-Claim denied. C&NW—
ATDA. Decision No. 272.
8. Clerical Forces.
Question as to proper rate of compensation for clerk who, after completing
his regular assignment from 4 p. m. to midnight, was required to work from
midnight to 8 a. m. on another position carrying a higher rate of pay than his
regular assignment. Employee was allowed time and one-half overtime based
on straight time rate of his own position, but is contending for overtime on
basis of rate of position which he was filling. Decision-Claim denied. N&W
Clks. Decision No. 278.
Claim of extra clerk, working two eight-hour shifts within a twenty-four
hour period, for time and one-half rate for work performed on second shift.
Decision-Claim denied. N&W-Clks. Decision No. 279.
Question as to whether warehouse employees at certain points shall be paid
double time for work performed on Sundays and holidays. Decision-It ap-
pears that this controversy does not involve specific claims for compensation
from any of the employees affected and that dispute is submitted as an Addenda
to the submission to the Board covering result of negotiations on proposed
rules conducted in accordance with Decision No. 119. Dispute will therefore
be considered an Addenda to the submission on rules and this docket is there-
fore closed. CM&StPRy-Clks. Decision No. 387.
Claim of certain clerical employees in the general offices of the carrier.
who were required to work on various Saturday afternoons for additional
compensation for service performed thereon,_contention being made under
Rule 57 of the Clerks' National Agreement. Decision-In the opinion of the
Board the last paragraph of Rule 57 does not contemplate that employees
who are required to work on Saturday afternoons shall be paid overtime
therefor. This language is to provide for the continuation of the practice
of allowing employees to be off for a part of the day on certain days of
the week where such practice is now in effect, but when required to work in
case of emergency on such days does not provide for additional compen-
sation therefor. Claim is, therefore, denied. IllCen-Clks. Decision No.
461. CM&StP-Clks. Decisions Nos. 468, 469 and 470.
Claim of certain clerks for payment for overtime worked in excess of
8 hours per day. Prior to January 1, 1919, the employees involved were
working 52 hours per week. They made request that their hours of service.
be reduced to 48 hours per week and arranged so that they would work 834
hours on week days and 44 hours on Saturday, which arrangement was
agreed to by the carrier and placed in effect on January 1, 1919, and con-
tinued in effect after the issuance of the Clerks' National Agreement, effect-
ive January 1, 1920. On October, 1920, employees made claim that all
employees who had worked under this arrangement should be paid overtime
after 8 hours from the effective date of the Clerks' National Agreement.
On December 16, 1920, an agreement was entered into between the employees
and the Superintendent of Terminals at the point in question, establishing
an 8-hour day for the first five days of the week and a 5-hour day on Satur-
days in consideration of which the employees agreed to waive all claims
for overtime for the first five days of the week which had been worked
prior to December 16, 1920. On January 31, 1921, carrier cancelled the
agreement of December 16, 1920, and gave notice to the employees that
thereafter the hours of service would be 8 per day six days per week,
taking the position that the officer who entered into the agreement in ques-
tion exceeded his authority in doing so. Employees entered protest and
on February 7, 1921, an agreement was made restoring the conditions which
extended from January 1, 1919, to December 16, 1920, the employees waiv-
171
ing all claims for overtime which might be worked while this agreement
was in effect, pending settlement of their claim for overtime worked from
effective date of Clerks' National Agreement to December 16, 1920. At
hearing conducted by the Board the employees modified their request to cover
the period from March 1, 1920, to December 16, 1920. Employees also
contend for continuance of the 45-hour week under Rule 57 of National
Agreement, as well as under the local agreement of December 16, 1920.
Carrier takes position that the Labor Board has no jurisdiction in this case,
claiming that Board has no authority to make any decision either denying
or sustaining a claim for "wages due"; that this is a matter for the courts
to determine under the working agreement in effect during the period for
which the claim is made. Carrier further contends that all previous con-
tracts were annuled by the agreement of February 7, 1921, that the claim for
overtime is not justified inasmuch as these employees were by an agreement
working a 48-hour week and the hours were changed at their request in
order that they might be off Saturday afternoons and that the 45-hour week
should not be allowed because agreement of February 7, 1921, provided for
a 48-hour week. Decision Board took jurisdiction in this dispute, stat-
ing that it has the authority to grant or deny claim for overtime; and de-
cides that as it is conclusively shown that the employees requested and were
granted a 48-hour weck on January 1, 1919, and the hours were arranged
to suit their convenience, the claim for overtime for work performed in
excess of 8 hours the first five days of the week is denied; and that for the
reasons herein set forth in denying the claim for overtime the Board denies
the request for the establishment of a 45-hour week and considers that it
is a question to be determined as a part of the submission made as a result
of the conference held under Decision No. 119. CI&L-Clks. Decision No.
607.
Claim of certain employees for additional compensation for time worked
in excess of regular weekly assignment. Case withdrawn and file closed.
LV-Clks. Decision No. 787.
Where employee, after fulfilling his own assignment, is required to relieve
the regular assigned employee on the succeeding shift, for which he was
paid at the straight time rate of the position of the employee relieved, em-
ployees are claiming pay at rate of time and one-half under Rule 57 of the
National Agreement. Decision-Board decides that service performed by
the employee involved in this dispute was not a temporary assignment within
the meaning of Rule 72 of the agreement, and claim of employees is sustained.
GC&SF-Clks. Decision No. 839.
9. Signal Forces.
Question as to whether (1) Addendum 2 to Decision No. 119 provides for
payment of pro rata rate for regular and special assignments on Sundays and
holidays and (2) Addendum 2 affects payment under the call rule as em-
bodied in the national agreement. Employees contend that Addendum 2 to De-
cision No. 119 makes no mention of Sunday and holiday work, but has reference
only to overtime after regular hours, and in view of the fact that question as to
payment of Sunday and holiday time was one of the disputed rules submitted.
to the Labor Board for decision, the National Agreement should apply until
the Labor Board renders a decision on this question. In regard to payment
for call, employees take position that until a decision is rendered thereon
the National Agreement should also apply and three hours should be the
minimum payment. Carrier takes position that as no overtime was allowed
for Sunday and holiday work prior to Federal control it is proper, in accord-
ance with Addendum 2 to Decision No. 119, to pay pro rata for such
service until the Board disposes of the question; and that in regard to the
call rule, that in allowing a minimum of two hours at pro rata rate they are
complying with the meaning and intent of Decision No. 119 and Addendum
2 thereto. Decision (1) Under provisions of Addendum 2 to Decision 119,
pro rata rate shall be paid for regular and special assignments of signal
department employees on Sunday and holidays, except classes of employees
which have reached agreements on overtime rates or who by agreement
172
or practice were receiving a rate higher than pro rata prior to the promulga-
tion of any general order of the U. S. Railroad Administration relating
to wages and working conditions; (2) inasmuch as the call rule referred
to specifies an allowance of "two hours at overtime rates," the overtime
rate under provisions of Addendum 2 to Decision No. 119 shall be applied.
These decisions shall apply with the understanding that if the rules promul-
gated by the Board are more favorable to the employees adjustment in com-
pensation due will be made by the carrier. NYCRR-Sig. Decision No. 407.
Question as to proper application of Addendum 2 to Decision No. 119 to
signal department maintenance employees who are regularly assigned to work
seven days per week. While the carrier involved was not listed in Decision
No. 119 it was mutually agreed that the provisions thereof would be made
applicable and in accordance therewith negotiations regarding revision of
rules and working conditions were entered into. Prior to Federal control
the agreement in effect provided that no extra compensation would be
allowed maintenance men who worked on a monthly basis for Sundays and
holidays, unless called for extra duty. In accordance with provisions of
Supplement 4 to G. O. 27 employees in question were allowed payment at rate
of time and one-half for Sunday and holiday work up to July 1, 1921, the
effective date of Addendum 2 to Decision No. 119, on which date overtime
conditions prevailing prior to government control for regular seven day workers
were reestablished. Employees take position that Decision No. 119 and Ad-
dendum thereto did not abrogate the provisions of agreement entered into be-
tween carrier and its employees dated May 1, 1919, but that Decision No. 119
and Addendum 2 thereto had reference to the so-called National Agreements
promulgated by the U. S. Railroad Administration. Decision-In view of the
acceptance of the provisions of Decision No. 119 as being applicable to the
carrier and the employees in question Board decides that Addendum No. 2 there-
to shall likewise be considered applicable and further decides that the carrier
has complied with the meaning and intent of said Addendum No. 2 in re-
establishing overtime conditions in effect prior to the issuance by the U. S.
Railroad Administration of any supplement to G. O. 27. KanCityTer—Sig.
Decision No. 648.
10. Supervisory Forces.
Question as to whether supervisory employees covered by the provisions of
Section 8, Article V of the National Maintenance of Way Agreement shall
be allowed overtime for service performed after 8 hours, such as making up
payrolls, time books, material reports, accident reports or any other reports
these employees are called upon to make after 8 hours have been worked. De-
cision-Employees in question, in accordance with the rule referred to, are not
entitled to overtime for the performance of service mentioned. Penn-MofW.
Decision No. 411.
11, Express Employees.
Claim of certain employees for overtime account of being required to
sleep in office after completion of their regular assignment. Employees con-
tend that as the employees named are required to be at the office during speci-
fied hours to act as guards of the premises and perform certain janitor work,
and are also required to make arrangements to have their places filled when
they desire to lay off and compensate employees who relieve them for the
service rendered, they are entitled to pay at established overtime rate for all time
required to be on duty after completion of their regular assignment. Carrier
admits that these employees slept in quarters provided for their use, but state
that in accepting their positions they fully understood that they were expected
to avail themselves of the sleeping quarters provided for them, and contends that
under the circumstances claim for overtime work or payment of any other
compensation for sleeping on the premises of the carrier is unjustified. De-
cision-Claim of employees denied. ARE-OofRE. Decisions Nos. 900 and
907.
PAINTERS.
Representation of coach and car painters by carmen's organization or by
organization of painters and paperhangers. See "Representation Rights—
Shop Crafts."
173
Where painters in maintenance of way department were classified and
paid under Sup. 4 and Addendum 2 thereto, which rates continued to be applied
up to effective date of Decision 2 of Labor Board, when management con-
sidered it had erred in applying Sup. 4 to these employees and endeavored to
correct the error by applying the increase provided by Decision 2 to rates that
would have been in effect had Sup. 8 been applied, claim is made that the
work performed by these M. of W. painters should be classified and paid under
the Shop Crafts Agreement. Decision-(a) Employees in question do not come
under National Shop Agreement and it is not proper to classify and pay them
under said agreement; (b) increase of 15c specified in Decision 2 for MofW.
mechanics to be added to rates in effect 12:01 a. m. March 1, 1920. DL&W-
MofW. Decision No. 92.
PART TIME EMPLOYEES.
Question as to application of Decision 3 to "part time" employees engaged
in the handling of express shipments for varying periods of from one to four
hours per day after 6 p. m.; petitioners requesting that increases authorized by
said decision be applied to their rates as of May 1, 1920. Decision-Claim
denied. ARECo-13employees. Decision No. 187.
Claim that employee who is employed only "part time" should have received
an increase of sixteen cents per hour from effective date of Decision No. 3.
Carrier states employee in question was attending school and was employed on
an hourly basis for short periods of time, and contends he is specifically ex-
cepted from provisions of agreement under exception (a), rule 1, Article I.
Decision-Claim of employees denied. ARECo-Clks. Decision No. 298.
Request for increase in wages of certain part time employees at certain
point to equalize with wages paid regular employees at the same point. At the
point in question there are employed from day to day a number of men who
work from 5 to 7 hours per day. These employees are termed "short hour
men" and are engaged in the handling of express shipments and performance
of certain clerical work incident thereto. Employees contend that these men
should be paid the same rates of pay as are paid to regular employees of the
carrier, while carrier takes the position that these men are regularly employed
in outside employment and are not subject to the provisions of Supplement
19, the National Agreement, the decisions of the Labor Board and the Trans-
portation Act. Decision-Claim of employees denied. ARE-Clks. Decision
No. 679.
When Decision 3 was issued on August 16, 1920, (which decision was made
effective May 1, 1920) carrier applied increase prescribed therein to rate of po-
sition held by part time employee as of August 16, 1920. This employee is
now claiming back pay to the effective date of said decision for the days which
he worked between said period, namely May 1 to August 16, 1920. De-
cision-Claim of employees sustained. ARE-Clks. Decision No. 905.
are
Question as to application of Decision No. 3 to certain employees classi-
fied as guards and custodians, employees contending that these men
bona fide employees of the carrier and are entitled to the increase specified
for employees in their class of service in Section 4, Article II of Decision
No. 3. Carrier states that it has been a practice of long standing to hire
individuals to perform guard service and pay them a flat rate to cover such
service; that the individuals referred to are engaged in other employment
and come within the category of casually employed laborers who devote
only a part of their time from outside business; that their employment is
incidental and intermittent and, therefore, they are properly excluded from
Supplement 19 to G. O. 27, from the Transportation Act, from the Decisions
of the Labor Board and from the National Agreement covering express
employees. Decision-It appears that these so-called guards or custodians
have been engaged in this same work for a period of from four to eight
years; that statement filed with Board showing number of days worked
indicates they customarily perform from 15 to 20 days' service per month
and the Board decides, therefore, that Decision No. 3 shall apply to the
ARE-Clks. De-
employees referred to from the effective date thereof.
cision No. 932.
174
PASSENGER SERVICE.
(Increases granted by Labor Board to engineers, firemen and helpers in.
See "Sec. 1, Art. VI, Decision 2.")
(Increases granted to conductors and trainmen in. See "Sec. 1, Art. VII,
Decision 2." See "Sec. 1, Art. VI, Decision 5.")
(Decreases, effective July 1, 1921, covering engineers, firemen and helpers
in. See "Sec. 1, Art. VI, Decision 147.")
(Decreases, effective July 1, 1921, covering conductors and trainmen in.
See "Sec. 1, Art. VII, Decision 147.")
1. Basis for applying Decision 2 to
2. Guarantees
3. Overtime
1. Basis for Applying Decision 2 to.
Shall the overtime rate for engineers in passenger service, which in some
instances was greater than one-eighth of the daily rate, be increased in the
same proportion as the daily rate under Decision 2? Decision-No; rate shall
not be less than one-eighth of increased daily rate, preserving former higher
flat overtime rates. L&N-E&F. Int. 4. IC-E. Int. 4 to Decision No. 2.
How shall Decision 2 be applied to guaranteed minimum daily rate for
engineers and firemen in short turnaround passenger service? Decision-Add
80c to rate specified. WP-E&F. Int. 13 to Decision No. 2.
Shall the minimum rates for engineers in passenger service in effect prior
to Sup. 24 and preserved account being higher than minimum established there-
in, be increased by Decision 2? Decision-Yes. SAL-E&F. Int. 11 to De-
cision No. 2.
Shall the daily guarantee in passenger service established by Sup. 15 for
engineers and firemen be increased eighty cents by Art. VI of Decision 2?
Decision-Yes. SAL-E&F. Int. 22, Int. 10, and IC-E. Int. 14 to Decision
No. 2.
Shall the passenger minimum under existing agreement, which is five cents
in excess of minimum rate established by Sup. 15, be increased by Decision 2?
Decision-Yes. L&N-E&F. Int. 5 to Decision No. 2.
Prior to Sup. 16 certain runs were paid minimum day on each leg of
trip when last leg not made on same calendar day. Under Sup. 16 these runs
were placed on turnaround basis and calendar days disregarded, but as daily
rates previously allowed were higher than mileage rates of supplement, such
minima were retained. In the application of Decision 2 the mileage rates were
higher, thereby superseding or absorbing former minima, but committee con-
tends that such minima should not be absorbed but increases given under
Decision 2 added to said daily minima. Decided-Management's method of
payment just and reasonable. RF&P-C&T. Decision No. 57.
Question as to proper application of Decision 2 to minimum day rates in
short turnaround passenger service. Settled locally and case withdrawn.
OWRR&N-E&F. Decision No. 95.
Where there exists flat overtime rate in passenger service claim is made
that the overtime rate should be increased under Decision 2 in the same pro-
portion as the daily rate, i. e. one-fifth of the increase granted in the daily
rate, or 16c. Case withdrawn, parties at interest agreeing on settlement.
OWRR&N-E&F. Decision No. 96.
2. Guarantees.
Claim for pay under monthly guarantee for ten-day period during which
line was blocked account of snow; bulletin having been posted discontinuing
all regular passenger service during such period. Denied Service discon-
tinued by proper notification. D&SL-EFC&T. Decision No. 26.
Claim for pay for ten-day period during which held for service but not
used account snow blockade. Sustained. D&SL-EFC&T. Decision No. 27.
3. Overtime.
Question as to whether the adoption of the eight-within-ten hour rule of
175
Sup. 24 is mandatory, or whether present basic day rule, which is more favor-
able, may be retained. Decision-Have option of accepting or rejecting in
its entirety the eight-within-ten hour rule. T&P-E&F. Decision No. 93.
Where there exists flat overtime rate in passenger service, claim is made
that the overtime rate should be increased under Decision 2 in the same pro-
portion as the daily rate; that is, one-fifth of the increase granted in the
daily rate, or 16c. Case withdrawn, parties at interest agreeing on settle-
ment. OWRR&N-E&F. Decision No. 96.
PASSES. See "Transportation--Issuance of Free."
PAST PRACTICES-CONTINUANCE OF. See "Practices-Continu-
ance of Past."
Dispute with reference to changing pay days from weekly to semi-
monthly basis for vehicle employees. Decision-The Board decides that the
payment of salaries to the employees involved in this dispute on a semi-monthly
basis is not in violation of any rule, order, or agreement affecting the wages and
working conditions of employees in the carrier's service. Claim of the em-
ployees is, therefore, denied. ARE-Drivers, etc. Decision No. 864.
PAY WHEN NOT USED ON ASSIGNMENT.
See "Assignments-pay when not used on."
PAYMENTS FOR TIME LOST. See "Time lost-Pay For."
(See also "Reinstatements" and "Discipline.")
PAYROLL WEEK.
Change in date of termination of.
Question as to right of railroad to change date of termination of pay-roll
week. Road sustained. B&M-Clerks. Decision No. 45.
PERSONAL OFFICE FORCES. See "Excepted Positions."
PETITIONS TO LABOR BOARD FOR RECONSIDERATION OR
REHEARING. See "Rehearing on Decisions."
PHYSICAL EXAMINATION.
Question as to right of carrier under rules 46 and 27 of the National
Shop Agreement, to require an employee who was laid off in reduction in
force to take a physical examination and to hold him out of service account of
alleged failure to pass such examination. Decision-Board is advised by par-
ties at interest that dispute has been disposed of and case is, therefore, removed
from docket and file closed. CB&Q-ShpCrf. Decision No. 793.
PIECE WORK.
Question as to application of Rule 66 of the Clerks' National Agreement to
position paid on piecework basis. Case removed from the docket and file
closed, in accordance with understanding reached between the employees and
carrier at hearing conducted by the Labor Board. B&O-Clks. Decision
No. 872.
PILE DRIVERS.
Claim that increases provided in Section 3, Article VII, Decision 2, cover-
ing train service employees should be applied to certain employees of the M.
of W. Department assigned to self-propelled pile-driver outfit, instead of the
increases provided in Article III of Decision 2. Claim denied. SouPac-
Mof W. Decision No. 188.
176
PILOTS ON RAILROAD OPERATED FERRY AND TUG BOATS.
See "Marine Employees."
PORTERS—Baggage, parcel and mail. See "Baggage and Parcel Room
Employees."
PORT OF NEW YORK. Lighter Captains in.
Increases granted by Labor Board. See "Decision 4."
PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO.
Request of marine employees on railroad-operated floating equipment in
Port of San Francisco for increases in wages and changes in rules and work-
ing conditions. Denied. NWP-SP-AT&SF-WP-MM&PofA-MEBA-
FBUofC. Decision No. 20.
POSITIONS:
(Classification and Reclassification of-See "Classification of Positions,
Service and Rates.")
1. Filling of
2. Rating of
3. Abolishing
4. Creating new
1. Filling of.
Dispute regarding reclassification of position of ticket agent to that of
ticket clerk at reduced rate of pay. Employees contend that under provisions
of Agreement, carrier cannot properly change the classification or rate of pay
of a position without conferring with the Committee, and in event of failure
to agree, until the change is approved by the Labor Board. Carrier states that
business conditions at the point in question justified the reclassification of the
position to that of ticket clerk, and it was decided to extend the jurisdiction
of the freight agent to cover the passenger station; that the former ticket
agent, who is now ticket clerk, is only required to sell tickets and make re-
ports incident thereto, and that his rate of pay has been adjusted in accordance
with similar positions on the line under the rulings of the agreement. De-
cision-Claim of employees denied. MK&T-Tel. Decision No. 837.
2. Rating of.
Request for reclassification and rating of pumper now classified and paid
under Section (a-12), Article V, National Maintenance of Way Agreement,
whose position it is claimed requires continuous alertness and application and
should be excepted from the application of Section (a-12) in accordance with
the last paragraph thereof, and be classified in a supervisory capacity and paid
accordingly. Decision-Claim denied. MP-MofW. Decision No. 255.
Where employee left the service and carrier bulletined the vacancy at a
lower rate of pay than the former incumbent was receiving, claim is made that
such reduction in the rate of the position was in violation of Rule 71 of the
Clerks' National Agreement, and that the former rate be reestablished from
date the reduction was made, and the increase authorized by Decision No. 2
added to said rate. Decision-Claim sustained-decision not to be construed
to prohibit the establishment of minimum rates for inexperienced clerks as
provided in Decision No. 147. EP&SW-Clks. Decision No. 238.
Dispute in connection with application Rule 79 of National Agreement to
position in the regional accounting department, employees contending that
Rule 79 which provides that positions (not employees) shall be rated, super-
sedes the provision of Supplement 19 to G. O. 27 governing rates for inex-
perienced employees, and that the employee involved, although having less than
one year's experience, should have received the full rate of the position which
he was filling. Decision-Claim of employees denied. ARECo-Clks. De-
cision No. 297.
Where signal department helper was assigned temporarily for a period
of several weeks to fill position of assistant signal maintainer after which
177
time he was permanently continued in said position, question arises as to
rate of pay applicable during the temporary assignment. Employee contends
that under Section 23, Article II of the agreement, he should receive the
rate of the position while the carrier contends he should be paid according
to his experience in line with Section 2, Article V of the same agreement.
Decision-Based upon its construction of the rules referred to the Board
decides that a signal department helper assigned temporarily to fill position
of assistant signal maintainer should have received the same rate of pay al-
lowed the employee permanently assigned to the position, but that when per-
manent assignment was made the rate established by Section 2, Article V
of the agreement, should apply. NYC-Sig. Decision No. 356.
Request for equalization of rates of pay of two positions in the settle-
ment department at certain point, employees contending that the work of
the two positions is identical and that the rates of same should be equalized,
in accordance with Section (b), Article I of Supplement 19 to General
Order 27. Carrier contends that Supplement 19 to General Order 27 does
not provide for equalization of rates of employees doing same class of work,
but only employees doing the same work; furthermore, that the higher rate
is paid to an employee who was formerly cashier and whose position was
abolished in consolidation of the express companies at the point in question.
Therefore, the payment of the higher rate is for a special or extraordinary
reason within the meaning and intent of Section (b), Article I of Supple-
ment 19. Decision-Evidence before the Board shows that the two employees
involved were not performing the same work at the same agency within the
meaning and intent of Section (b), Article I of Supplement 19, and request
of the employees is, therefore, denied. ARECo-Clks. Decision No. 369.
Request for equalization of rate of pay of position of assistant paymaster
with rate of position of bookkeeper at same point, employees contending
that the duties performed by these two employees are practically the same
and that under provisions of Article I of Section (e) of Supplement 19
to G. O. 27, the rates of pay should be the same, and request equalization
in accordance with Section (b) of Supplement 19. Decision-Board construes
Section (b), Article I, Supplement 19, to provide for equalization of rates
for the same work at the same agency. Evidence in this case indicates
that the work of the two positions is not the same work within the meaning
and intent of section referred to and denies request of employees. ARECo
Clks. Decision No. 371.
Question as to whether rate established by Railroad Administration for
employees classified as check clerks in freight office at certain point shall
continue in effect after expiration of Federal control. During period of
Federal control the positions involved in this dispute were changed from
classification of stevedores, paid on hourly basis, to check clerks paid on
monthly basis. A dispute arose as to the proper rate of pay for these em-
ployees and decision was issued by the Director General of Railroads in-
creasing the monthly rate, which rate the carrier applied and continued
to pay until the expiration of Federal control, when it decreased the monthly
rate to the former basis. The employees contend that the higher rate hav-
ing been authorized by the Director General of Railroads became a part
of the National Agreement and should remain in effect as provided in Rule
86 of said agreement. Decision-The Board decides that the rate of the posi-
tions involved in this dispute was the rate established by and under the
authority of the U. S. Railroad Administration and in accordance with
the provisions of Rule 86 of the National Agreement, Decision No. 2 of the
Labor Board, and the Transportation Act, this rate shall remain in effect
until changed by mutual agreement or by decision of the Board. StLSF—
Clks. Decision No. 465.
Dispute in regard to classification and rate of pay of position of baggage-
man clerk at certain point. Prior to April 1, 1921, a major portion of the
time consumed by this employee was devoted to the work of trucking and
handling baggage. On that date there was added to the position sufficient
clerical duties to justify its classification as a clerk within the designation
of Rule 4 of the Clerks' National Agreement and the position was designated
178
as baggageman clerk at specified daily rate which rate was established
by multiplying the hourly rate previously paid by the number of hours
constituting a day's work. Employees contend that the change constituted
the establishment of a new position, the rate of which should conform
with the rate of position of similar kind and class in the seniority district
in which it was created, and further contend that the rate should have been
established by applying principle contained in Rule 66 of the Clerks' Na-
tional Agreement. Carrier takes position that Rule 66 has no application
and that the duties of the position in question are not similar to duties of
positions in the same seniority district which the employees claim are of
similar kind and class. Decision-Position of carrier sustained. SP-Clks.
Decision No. 466.
Dispute with reference to proper rate of pay of certain clerical employees.
Decision-Case withdrawn by employees and file closed. Penn-Clks. De-
cision No. 570.
a
Dispute with reference to proper rate of pay of head clerk in the over-
charge claim department. Decision-It appears that this dispute covers
controversy which arose during the period of Federal control and has
already been the subject of a decision by the Director General of Railroads.
Board decides, therefore, that it has no jurisdiction and case is removed
from docket and file closed. Colo&Sou-Clks. Decision No. 575.
Where position of operator in the general telegraph office at a certain point
was abolished and the work of said position assigned to the operators in the
yard office at the same point, claim is made that the operators in the yard
office are entitled to the rate paid the position abolished. Decision-Claim
denied. EP&SW-Tel. Decision No. 609.
Dispute with reference to proper rate of pay for employee filling position
designated as assistant in-freight clerk, which position paid less than rate
paid certain other employees in the same office, who it is contended were doing
the same work. Carrier contends that employee in question was not performing
the same work as the other employees in the office in question and that on
the contrary the differential in the rate of pay to which exception is taken
has always existed and is fully justified by the conditions of employment
and hours of service. Position has since been abolished. Decision-Claim
of employees denied. ARE-Clks. Decision No. 704.
Claim of roundhouse laborers at a certain point for rate of inside hostler
from March 1, 1920, on the ground that they are required, as a part of their
duties, to handle engines in and out of the roundhouse. Evidence filed by
carrier shows that less than 25 per cent of the laborers' time is consumed
in moving locomotives, the balance of their time being consumed in round-
house laborers' work. Decision-Claim denied. MV-MofW. Decision No.
891.
3. Abolishing.
Where road, party to Decision No. 2, about Dec. 1, 1920, issued an order
putting into effect reduced rate of pay and changed working conditions, with-
out first seeking or holding conference with representatives of employees con-
cerned, question as to whether Decision No. 2 was violated by road concerned—
road's contention being that positions involved were abolished and men reem-
ployed on individual contracts. Decision-Road violated Decision No. 2 of
Labor Board, and should restore the said positions and the pay, duties and
obligations of said positions to what they were on July 20, 1920, as established
by Decision No. 2; and further decided that persons serving in said positions
just prior to effective date of the carrier's order be reinstated, if they so desire,
and receive pay equal to what they would have received if occupying such
positions, at the rate provided by Decision No. 2, from the date removed or
reduced in pay to date of reinstatement, less any amount that may have been
earned by personal service in the meantime. StLSW-MofW. Decision
No. 120.
Petition of St.LSW for rehearing on Decision No. 120. Denied. De-
cision No. 149.
179
Was the action of the carrier in abolishing the position of chief car record
clerk and creating position of car accountant in conflict with rule 84 of
Clerks' National Agreement, and does the position of car accountant come
within the scope of the agreement? Decision-Board decides that action of
carrier was not a violation of rule 84, and that the position of car accountant
at the point in question is not within the scope of the National Agreement.
RF&P-Clks. Decision No. 241.
Question whether abolition of positions of second messengers and creation
of positions of helpers on certain express runs is in violation of Rule 91 of
the National Agreement, employees contending that duties and responsibilities
of helpers are identical with those of the second messengers, and that the
change in title was made for purpose of reducing rate of pay, which is in
violation of rule referred to. Decision-Contention of employees denied.
ARECo-Clks. Decision No. 281.
Position of ticket clerk at certain station was abolished and duties thereof
assigned to the agent in charge of the station. Employee filling position of
ticket clerk was permitted to exercise his seniority and displaced another em-
ployee. Employees contend that as duties of position are still existent and
being performed by the agent, the position has not, in fact, been abolished, and
request reinstatement of ticket clerk to former position and reimbursement
for difference in compensation. Decision-Contention of employees denied.
N&W-Clks. Decision No. 288.
Where at certain point there were employed five telegraph operators per-
forming all the telegraph and telephone work in the telegraph and also in dis-
patcher's office located in the same building, question as to right of carrier to
abolish four of these positions, reassigning the remaining operator to service
from 7:45 a. m. to 4:45 p. m. and requiring the train dispatchers to handle
all telegraph work outside of the telegrapher's assigned hours as well as some
of the telegraph work during the period of telegrapher's assignment. Em-
ployees contend that transfer of work of the telegraph operators to employees
in other branches of the service for the purpose of relieving telegraphers is in
conflict with provisions of the agreement and request that such positions as may
be necessary to meet the requirements of the service be restored. Carrier states
that point referred to was formerly a division terminal for freight trains and
the telegraphers were required to handle various reports and messages incident
to terminal activities and also assist the dispatchers who were located in the
same building. At the present time the only telegraphing done is that pertain-
ing to business handled by the division officer at said point, there being a tele-
graph office in the freight station where all the telegraph business pertaining
L&N
to the agency is handled. Decision-Request of the employees denied.
Ry-Tel. Decision No. 365.
Question as to whether abolition of position of foreman and creation of
position of stockman in the stationery store department at certain point was
in conflict with provisions of rule 84 of the Clerks' National Agreement. Em-
ployees do not question right of carrier to reorganize department, but con-
tend that the abolition of the position designated as foreman and the creation
of position of stockman was unnecessary and that there has merely been a
change of title covering relatively the same class of work. The new posi-
tion was bulletined and as a result of the exercise of seniority rights the
employee formerly filling the position of foreman was displaced and obliged
to take a clerical position at a lower rate of pay. Decision-Board decides
that all the rules of the National Agreement were complied with in connection
with the reorganization of the department in question and that there was no
violation of rule 84 of said agreement. SP-Clks. Decision No. 379.
Question as to right of carrier to abolish positions designated as "agent
telegraphers" and establish positions of "agent non-telegraphers" at the same
point. Employees state that positions in question were designated in the teleg-
raphers' schedule as "agent telegraphers," and that the action of the carrier
in removing the wires from the station, changing the classification of the po-
sitions, reducing the rate of pay and changing the hours of service from 8-
within-9 hours to 8-within-12 hours was in conflict with rule 24 of the agree-
ment. Decision-Board decides that action of the carrier in this case is not a
180
violation of Rule 24 of the agreement. WabashRR-Tel. Decision No. 530.
Where position of operator in the general telegraph office at a certain point
was abolished and the work of said position assigned to the operators in the
yard office at the same point, claim is made that the operators in the yard
office are entitled to the rate paid the position abolished. Decision-Claim de-
nied. EP&SW-Teleg. Decision No. 609.
Where position of claim clerk was abolished and new position of utility
clerk created, claim is made that such action was in violation of rule 84 of the
Clerks' National Agreement, and that certain senior employees should be given
the opportunity of qualifying for the position of utility clerk, in accordance
with the rules of the agreement. Decision-Evidence shows that position of
claim clerk was abolished and position of utility clerk, with some added duties,
was established in lieu thereof. The rate of the position remained the same,
and the new position was bulletined as required by the rules of the agreement;
therefore the claim that rule 84 was violated is not sustained. It is also shown
that the senior employees referred to did not have the requisite fitness and abil-
ity to qualify on the position of utility clerk, and the claim of the employees
that they be granted a trial on the position is, therefore, denied. G&SI-Clks.
Decision No. 855.
4. Creating New.
Was the action of the carrier in abolishing the position of chief car record
clerk and creating position of car accountant in conflict with rule 84 of Clerks'
National Agreement, and does the position of car accountant come within the
scope of the agreement? Decision-Board decides that action of carrier was
not a violation of rule 84, and that the position of car accountant at the point
in question is not within the scope of the National Agreement. RF&P-Clks.
Decision No. 241.
Question whether abolition of positions of second messengers and creation
of positions of helpers on certain express runs is in violation of Rule 91
of the National Agreement, employees contending that duties and responsibil-
ities of helpers are identical with those of the second messengers, and that
the change in title was made for purpose of reducing rate of pay, which
is in violation of rule referred to. Decision-Contention of employees denied.
ARECo-Clks. Decision No. 281.
Question as to whether abolition of position of foreman and creation
of position of stockman in the stationery store department at certain point
was in conflict with provisions of Rule 84 of the Clerks' National Agreement.
Employees do not question right of carrier to reorganize department, but
contend that the abolition of the position designated as foreman and the
creation of position of stockman was unnecessary and that there has merely
been a change of title covering relatively the same class of work. The
new position was bulletined and as a result of the exercise of seniority
rights the employee formerly filling the position of foreman was displaced
and obliged to take a clerical position at a lower rate of pay. Decision-
Board decides that all the rules of the National Agreement were complied
with in connection with the reorganization of the department in question
and that there was no violation of Rule 84 of said agreement. SP-Clks.
Decision No. 379.
Where position of claim clerk was abolished and new position of utility
clerk created, claim is made that such action was in violation of Rule 84 of
the Clerks' National Agreement, and that certain senior employees should
be given the opportunity of qualifying for the position of utility clerk, in
accordance with the rules of the agreement. Decision-Evidence shows
that position of claim clerk was abolished and position of utility clerk, with
some added duties, was established in lieu thereof. The rate of the position
remained the same, and the new position was bulletined as required by the
rules of the agreement; therefore, the claim that Rule 84 was violated is
not sustained. It is also shown that the senior employees referred to did
not have the requisite fitness and ability to qualify on the position of utility
clerk, and the claim of the employees that they be granted a trial on the
position is, therefore, denied. G&SI-Clks. Decision No. 855.
Request for new rule providing that in
filling switch-tenders' positions,
181
preference will be given to partially disabled former yard and train service
employees. Denied. Present practice just and reasonable. N&W-Tr. De-
cision No. 68.
POSTING NOTICES. See "Notices-posting of."
PRACTICES. Continuance of past.
Request that all freight office employees be entitled to annual vacation
with pay, and those not having been granted the privilege be entitled to addi-
tional pay for keeping up work of employees on vacation. Denied. Supple-
ment 7 and National Agreement do not change past practices in this regard.
LV-Clks. Decision No. 9.
Request of clerk for pay for time lost account sickness. Decision-In ab-
sence of a rule in existing agreement relative to allowance of pay for time
lost, the carrier is to be the judge as to whether such allowance is to be
made-request of employees is, therefore, denied. SP-Clks. Decision No. 19.
Claim of clerk for pay for time lost account sickness. Decision-Under
past practice the employee in question is not entitled to pay for time lost.
StLSF-Clks. Decision No. 192.
Claim of clerks for time lost account sickness and death in immediate
family. Decision-Claims sustained on basis of instructions of Director,
Division of Operation, U. S. Railroad Administration, to effect that while Na-
tional Agreement is silent on this point, it was understood that existing
practices as to vacations and sick leave would remain in effect. Decision is
not to be construed as indicating attitude of Labor Board on questions of pay
for time lost account sickness or vacations presented to it in submissions.
covering negotiations conducted under Decision No. 119. C&NW-Clks.
Decisions Nos. 235, 236 and 237.
Request for restoration of past practice said to exist in certain general
offices of letting clerical employees off the afternoon of the day before Christ-
mas without deduction in pay, and claim for pay for clerical employees who
were denied this privilege, December 24, 1920. Decision-Request denied.
StL&SF-Clks. Decision No. 610.
Dispute with reference to carrier abrogating past practices in regard
to vacations and request that clerical employees at certain offices who were
not granted annual vacations in the year 1921 be compensated therefor. De-
cision-Decision No. 2 of the Labor Board continued in effect rules estab-
lished by or under the authority of the U. S. Railroad Administration until
such rules are changed by mutual agreement. The representatives of the
employees and the carrier having been unable to agree upon a rule cover-
ing the vacation period the question is now before the Board for decision
and pending a decision by the Board the instructions of the Director, Division
of Operation of the U. S. Railroad Administration, shall remain in effect.
However, since the period during which vacations are ordinarily granted is
past for the year 1921, it is not practicable to require the carrier to allow
vacations for that year and it is not possible to grant the employees any
relief in this dispute. Evidence shows that it was not the practice of the
carrier to compensate employees for annual vacations which were not granted
and claim of employees for compensation in lieu thereof is, therefore, denied.
MK&T-Clks. Decision No. 634.
Dispute with reference to changing hours of service in certain general
offices of the carrier. In various offices, it was the practice to work clerical
employees seven hours and fifteen minutes daily, except Saturday, on which
day the offices are closed between 12 noon and 1 p. m. In December, 1920,
the working hours were increased to eight per day, five days per week,
but no change made in the practice of allowing the half holiday on Satur-
day. Employees contend that this change was in violation of Rule 57 of the
Clerks' National Agreement. Decision-Claim of employees denied. NYC-
Clks. Decision No. 731. LV-Clks.
LV-Clks. Decision No. 734.
Claim of certain clerk for pay for time absent from duty account of
death in family. Decision-Board reaffirms its direction in previous decisions.
that pending decision of the Board, orders, agreements and decisions of the
U. S Railroad Administration shall remain in effect unless or until changed
182
by mutual agreement between the employees and the carrier. It appears that
the claim presented by the employees has not been considered in conference
by the carrier and employees on a basis of practices in effect prior to Federal
control. The Board, therefore, remands this dispute to employees and carrier
for consideration on basis of past practice, and in event of failure to agree
thereon, it may be resubmitted for decision. This decision is based upon
rules of the Clerks' National Agreement and is not to be construed as in-
dicating the attitude of the Board on the question of pay for time absent
account of personal reasons. StLSF-Clks. Decision No. 874.
Claim of certain clerical employees for time lost account of illness. De-
cision-The Board has heretofore decided that pending decisions by the Board,
the instructions of the Director, Division of Operation, U. S. Railroad Ad-
ministration, shall remain in effect. It appears that the claim presented
has not been considered in conference by the employees and carrier on basis
of past practice, and the Board, therefore, remands this dispute to the
employees for consideration on this basis. In the event of failure to agree,
it may be resubmitted for decision. The decision is based upon the rules of
the National Agreement and the instructions of the Director, Division of
Operation, U. S. Railroad Administration, and is not to be construed as
indicating the attitude of the Board on the question of pay for time lost
account of sickness, remanded to the employees and the carrier in Decision
No. 630. StLSF-Clks. Decisions Nos. 875, 876, 877, 878, 879.
PREFERENTIAL EMPLOYMENT. See "Employment of Men on
Preferential Basis."
PRESERVATION OF RATES.
Question as to proper rate of compensation for clerk who, after complet-
ing his regular assignment from 4 p. m. to midnight, was required to work
from midnight to 8 a. m. on another position carrying a higher rate of pay
than his regular assignment. Employee was allowed time and one-half over-
time based on straight time rate of his own position, but is contending for
overtime on basis of rate of position which he was filling. Decision-Claim
denied. N&W-Clks. Decision No. 278.
Where signal department helper was assigned temporarily for a period
of several weeks to fill position of assistant signal maintainer after which time
he was permanently continued in said position, question arises as to rate of
pay applicable during the temporary assignment. Employee contends that
under Section 23, Article II of the agreement he should receive the rate of the
position while the carrier contends he should be paid according to his expe-
rience in line with Section 2, Article V of the same agreement. Decision—
Based upon its construction of the rules referred to the Board decides that
a signal department helper assigned temporarily to fill position of assistant
signal maintainer should have received the same rate of pay allowed the em-
ployee permanently assigned to the position, but that when permanent assign-
ment was made the rate established by Section 2, Article V of the agreement
should apply. NYC-Sig. Decision No. 356.
Dispute with reference to preservation of rates for certain clerical employees.
Supplement No. 7 to G. O. 27 established for certain clerical employees rates
of pay which were less than those established by G. O. 27, but in conference with
representatives of the employees the carrier agreed to preserve the higher
rates established by G. O. 27, which agreement was approved by the Regional
Director. Subsequently the Federal manager issued instructions that all rates
established by G. O. 27 which were higher than those authorized by Sup-
plement 7 thereto should be reduced when the positions to which they applied
became vacant. Employees contend that action of the carrier in reducing the
rates of the positions involved is in violation of rule 86 of the Clerks' National
Agreement, Decision No. 2 of the Labor Board, and the Transportation Act,
and request that the rates of pay established by G. O. 27 be restored and that
the employees who suffered reduction in wages be reimbursed for monetary
loss sustained. Decision-Board decides that rates established by G. O. 27
and preserved by agreement between representatives of the employees and the
carrier were the rates established by or under the authority of the U. S.
183
Railroad Administration in effect 12:01 a. m., March 1, 1920, and should have
remained in effect until changed by mutual agreement or decision of the Board.
The subsequent action authorized by the Federal manager, but without con-
ference or agreement, seems to have been an afterthought and while in equity
may have had some justification it was not so properly handled as to give it
full force and effect. The employees involved shall, therefore, be reimbursed
for the difference between the rates of pay they received while holding the po-
sitions affected and the rates which should have been established for such po-
sitions by applying the decisions of the Labor Board to the rates in effect
12:01 a. m., March 1, 1920. SouPac-Clks. Decision No. 622.
PROCEDURE. Rules of, adopted by Labor Board. See "Order No. 1."
PROMOTABLE MEN. Employment of. See "Employment of Men on
Preferential Basis."
PROMOTIONS. See "Seniority."
PULLMAN COMPANY.
Application of Decision 2 to Pullman Co. and its shop employees. Add. 5
to Decision 2.
Application of Decision 2 to Pullman Co. and its clerical and station
employees. Add. 6 to Decision 2.
Request for the continuation of the National Agreement in accordance
with ruling extending Decision No. 2 to cover Pullman Company. Decision-
Board understands that subsequent to filing this dispute an agreement has
been negotiated and consummated and that further negotiations will be con-
ducted with a view to disposing of this dispute. In view of this fact the
case is considered closed without prejudice to the right of either party in mak-
ing further submission in connection therewith if it so desires. Pullman Co-
ShpCrf. Decision No. 427.
Question as to application of Decision No. 2 to seamstresses in upholstery
department-no facts given. Decision-Board understands that subsequent to
filing this dispute an agreement has been negotiated and consummated and
that further negotiations will be conducted with a view to disposing of this
dispute. In view of this fact the case is considered closed without prejudice
to the right of either party in making further submission in connection there-
with if it so desires. Pullman Co-ShpCrf. Decision No. 428.
Dispute in regard to alleged violation of rules 39 and 49 of the National
Shop Agreement-no facts given. Decision-Board understands that subsequent
to filing this dispute an agreement has been negotiated and consummated and
that further negotiations will be conducted with a view to disposing of this
dispute. In view of this fact the case is considered closed without prejudice
to the right of either party in making further submission in connection there-
with if it so desires. Pullman Co-ShpCrf. Decision No. 429.
Dispute in regard to protest against Pullman Company's plan of employees'
representation-no facts given. Decision-Board understands that subsequent
to filing this dispute an agreement has been negotiated and consummated and
that further negotiations will be conducted with a view to disposing of this
dispute. In view of this fact the case is considered closed without prejudice
to the right of either party in making further submission in connection there-
with, if it so desires. Pullman Co-ShpCrf. Decision No. 431.
Dispute in regard to alleged violation of National Agreement in closing
shops at certain point on February 2, 1920, and refusal to recognize com-
mittee-no facts given. Decision-Board understands that subsequent to filing
this dispute an agreement has been negotiated and consummated and that
further negotiations will be conducted with a view to disposing of this dispute.
In view of this fact the case is considered closed without prejudice to the
right of either party in making further submission in connection therewith
if it so desires. Pullman Co-ShpCrf. Decision No. 432.
Dispute in regard to dismissal of certain shop employees-no facts given.
Decision-Board understands that subsequent to filing these disputes an agree-
ment has been negotiated and consummated and that further negotiations will
be conducted with a view to disposing of these disputes. In view of this fact
184
the case is considered closed without prejudice to the right of either party in
making further submission in connection therewith if it so desires. Pullman
Co-ShpCrf. Decisions Nos. 433, 436, 438, 441, 443, 444, 445, 446, 448, 449,
450, 452, 454, 455.
Dispute in regard to dismissal of car cleaner alleging violation of rule 47
of the National Agreement-no facts given. Decision-Board understands
that subsequent to filing this dispute an agreement has been negotiated and con-
summated and that further negotiations will be conducted with a view to dis-
posing of this dispute. In view of this fact the case is considered closed with-
out prejudice to the right of either party in making further submission in con-
nection therewith if it so desires. Pullman Co-ShpCrf. Decision No. 434.
Dispute in regard to alleged violation of rules 32 and 33 of the National
Agreement-no facts given.
facts given. Decision-Board understands that subsequent
to filing this dispute an agreement has been negotiated and consummated and
that further negotiations will be conducted with a view to disposing of this
dispute. In view of this fact the case is considered closed without prejudice
to the right of either party in making further submission in connection there-
with if it so desires. Pullman Co-ShpCrf. Decision No. 435.
Dispute in regard to alleged violation of rules 1, 27 and 36 of the National
Agreement by closing repair shops at noon on certain date-no facts stated.
Decision-Board understands that subsequent to filing this dispute an agreement
has been negotiated and consummated and that further negotiations will be con-
ducted with a view to disposing of this dispute. In view of this fact the case
is considered closed without prejudice to the right of either party in making
further submission in connection therewith if it so desires. Pullman Co-
ShpCrf. Decision No. 437.
Dispute in regard to increase in basic day to nine hours making a total of
50 hours per week-no facts given. Decision-Board understands that subse-
quent to filing this dispute an agreement has been negotiated and consummated
and that further negotiations will be conducted with a view to disposing of
this dispute. In view of this fact the case is considered closed without prej-
udice to the right of either party in making further submission in connection
therewith if it so desires. Pullman Co-ShpCrf. Decision No. 439.
Dispute in regard to correct computation of overtime worked by certain
employees in the truck department at certain shop-no facts given. Decision-
Board understands that subsequent to filing this dispute an agreement has been
negotiated and consummated and that further negotiations will be conducted
with a view to disposing of this dispute. In view of this fact the case is con-
sidered closed without prejudice to the right of either party in making further
submission in connection therewith if it so desires. Pullman Co-ShpCrf.
Decision No. 440.
1
Request for reinstatement of certain employee-no facts stated. Decision-
Board understands that subsequent to filing this dispute an agreement has
been negotiated and consummated and that further negotiations will be con-
ducted with a view to disposing of this dispute. In view of this fact the
case is considered closed without prejudice to the right of either party in mak-
ing further submission in connection therewith if it so desires. Pullman Co-
ShpCrf. Decision No. 442.
Dispute in regard to correct overtime rate in accordance with rule 7 of the
National Agreement affecting overtime worked by employees in trimming de-
partment in certain shops-no facts stated. Decision-Board understands that
subsequent to filing this dispute an agreement has been negotiated and con-
summated and that further negotiations will be conducted with a view to dis-
posing of this dispute. In view of this fact the case is considered closed with-
out prejudice to the right of either party in making further submission in con-
nection therewith if it so desires. Pullman Co-ShpCrf. Decision No. 447.
PUMPERS-CLASSIFICATION OF. See "Classification of Positions,
Service, and Rates."
Question as to proper application of Addendum 2 to Decision No. 119
to pump repairers compensated on a monthly basis. Evidence indicates that
prior to Federal control these pump repairers were paid monthly rates covering
1.
185
all service rendered, and received no payment for overtime. In accordance
with rulings of the Railroad Administration these employees were included in
the National Agreement covering shop crafts and under rule 15 thereof their
monthly rate was predicated upon 3,156 hours per year. After the issuance of
Addendum 2 to Decision No. 119 the employees were notified that their pay
would be reduced, the new rate being predicated upon 2,920 hours per year
(8 hours multiplied by 365 days). The management contends that these men
were paid no overtime prior to Federal control and Addendum 2 to Decision
No. 119 has, therefore, been properly applied. Decision-Board decides that
Interpretation No. 1 to Addendum 2 to Decision No. 119 covers the question
in dispute. N&W-ShpCrf. Decision No. 541.
PUNCHING TIME CLOCKS.
Claim of employees for payment at overtime rate for time consumed in
punching time clocks before and after regular assigned work period. Denied.
B&M-MofW. Decision. No. 42.
Request for reinstatement of foreman, and pay for time lost of said fore-
man and other members of his gang for period out of service (April 13 to
May 25, 1920), when they quit service of their own accord, refusing to per-
form certain work, which had been contracted out and which work the contractor
was unable to perform with his own men account of a strike of city carpen-
ters. The contract when made stipulated that in event the strike had not termi-
nated in time for said contractor to perform the work the carrier would fur-
nish the labor and the contractor the necessary material and supervision.
When the railroad employees were detailed to perform the work and learned
that they were filling the place of men out on strike and that the work was
to be supervised by the contractor, they refused to perform the work under
such conditions, the foreman agreeing with his men and quitting the service
with them. After investigation, the men were reinstated, and claim is now
made for pay for time lost, and for reinstatement of the foreman who has
not been returned to service. Decision-Board decides upon the evidence sub-
mitted that the men in question, including the foreman, quit the service of their
own accord, and therefore denies payment for time lost. It takes cognizance
of statement embodied in agreed statement of facts that the foreman has not
on his own part requested reinstatement or reemployment, or signified to any
official of carrier that anyone else was authorized to do so in his behalf, and
decides, therefore, that carrier is justified in position taken regarding reinstate-
ment. CCC&StL-MofW. Decision No. 257.
RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION. Rulings, Orders, etc., of.
Rates established by U. S. R. R. Administration adopted by Labor Board
as basis for increases. Decision No. 2.
Question as to continuance of, or modification of orders, agreements, etc.,
established by U. S. R. R. Administration. Decision-This question has been
separated from wage question, and will be given further hearing and con-
sideration, pending which no changes shall be made in the rules, conditions.
and agreements in force under authority of R. R. Administration, except by
agreement between carrier and employees concerned. (See Decision for roads.
and employees involved.) Decision No. 2.
Dispute as to continuation of, or changes in, rules and working agreements
established by U. S. Railroad Administration. Decision: (1) Direction of
Labor Board in Decision 2 extending said rules, etc., will cease and terminate
July 1, 1921; (2) Respective employees and carriers covered by dispute to
begin conferences and decide so much of dispute relating to rules and working
conditions as may be possible. Board to be kept advised of final agreements
and disagreements and rules agreed to by such conferences to be consistent
with certain principles set forth in Exhibit "B" attached to decision; (3)
Board will promulgate such rules as it determines just and reasonable as
soon after July 1, 1921, as reasonably possible, same to be effective as of July
1, 1921, and applicable to those classes for whom rules are not arrived at by
agreement; (4) Hearings in dispute will proceed so Board may be in position
186
to decide rules which may be necessary to promulgate under Section 3;
(5) Agreements entered into since March 1, 1920, not affected by this deci-
sion. See decision for carriers and employees covered. Decision No. 119.
Ruling of Board authorizing, as a temporary measure, pending final settle-
ment by Board of the rules question: (1) Pro rata rates for overtime, in lieu
of time and one-half, except for those classes with whom agreements have
been reached, and those classes which were receiving a higher rate than pro
rata prior to promulgation of any general order of Railroad Administration.
(2) Continuation of rules established by R. R. Administration until such time
as other rules are considered and decided. (3) No other modification of
Decision 119 except as above specified. (4) Rules agreed upon by carrier and
employees to be put in effect July 1, 1921. Add. 2 to Decision 119.
Question whether Decision 119 affects the agreements, supplements, orders,
etc., executed with or issued by Railroad Administration covering engineers,
firemen, conductors, trainmen and yardmen; employees contending that no
dispute regarding these matters was before the Board at time Decision 119
was rendered. Decision: Decision 119 does not terminate existing agreements
of train, engine and yard employees, as the Labor Board did not, nor could
it under provision of Transportation Act, include in its Decision 119 any
matter which was not before it as a dispute. Changes, however, may be made
after required notice, either by agreement of the parties or by decision of
Board after conference and proper reference in accord with Transportation
Act. CI&L-FEC-AA-CGW-TC. Int. 2 to Decision No. 119.
Question whether Decision 119 terminates, July 1, 1921, the agreement of
the Order of Railroad Telegraphers with the carriers included in that decision ;
employees contending that said decision in no wise affects the agreements,
supplements, orders, etc., of Railroad Administration for reason that no dis-
pute regarding these matters, involving said organization, was before the
Board at time Decision 119 was rendered. Decision: Employees sustained.
Changes, however, in such agreements may be made after required notice
either by agreement of parties or by decision of Board after conference and
proper reference in accord with Transportation Act-this decision not to inter-
fere with agreements reached nor with negotiations proceeding after proper
notice. Int. 4 to Decision 119.
Under Addendum No. 2 to Decision No. 119, question as to (a) proper com-
pensation for time worked outside of established day of eight hours, July 1 to
Aug. 15, 1921, inclusive; (b) proper compensation for time worked by hourly-
paid employees for service rendered on Sundays and designated holidays, July
1 to 15, 1921; (c) proper compensation for monthly-paid employees for service
rendered on Sundays and designated holidays, July 1 to 15, 1921. Decision-
(a) overtime rate specified in first paragraph Rule 6, Decision No. 222, shall
apply for time worked outside established day of eight hours, July 1 to Aug.
15, 1921; (b) second paragraph Rule 6, Decision No. 222, shall apply for serv-
ice rendered by hourly-rated employees on Sundays and designated holidays,
July 1 to Aug. 15, 1921; (c) provisions of rule 15 of Decision No. 222 shall
apply for period July 1 to Aug. 15, 1921, except that in each of these instances.
on roads and for classes of employees having a more favorable method of
payment prior to effective date of any supplement to G. O. 27 promulgated
by Railroad Administration, or who had reached agreement pursuant to
Decision No. 119 providing a more favorable method of payment, the more
favorable method of payment shall apply. Employees who were compensated
on a less favorable basis than outlined shall be reimbursed to extent of any
wage loss suffered for period above mentioned. Int. 1 to Addendum 2 to
Decision No. 119.
Under provisions of Addendum 2 to Decision No. 119, how should_ over-
time apply to employees of the Maintenance of Way Department from July 1,
to December 16, 1921. Decision-The pro rata overtime rate specified in par-
agraph (1) of Addendum 2 to Decision No. 119 shall apply for period July 1
to Dec. 16, 1921 (on which date Decision No. 501 became effective), except on
carriers and for classes of employees that have a more favorable method of
payment prior to effective date of any supplement to G. O. 27, or that have
reached an agreement providing a more favorable method of payment; in
187
either event the more favorable method of payment shall apply. Int. 2 to Ad-
dendum 2 to Decision No. 119.
Where certain signal maintainers, classified and paid by carrier under
Supplement 4 as electrical workers, second class, were, upon claim being made
by employees that such men were performing work of a composite mechanic
and matter submitted to Railroad Administration, by decision of the Admin-
istration re-rated and paid as electrical workers first class up to the date of ter-
mination of Federal control, after which time these employees were again
classified as second class electrical workers, question now arises as to rate to
be used in applying increase under Decision No. 2 to said employees. De-
cision Increase provided in Decision No. 2 shall be applied to the rates es-
tablished by decision of Railroad Administration referred to and back pay
allowed accordingly. MP-Sig. Decision No. 252.
Dispute in regard to proper classification and rating of hoisting engineers
who are engaged in transferring cars over an inclined plane and performing
other services in connection therewith, employees contending that these hoist-
ing engineers perform mechanical work and should be paid the mechanics' rate
in accordance with Supplement 4 to G. O. 27 and the National Shop Agreement,
and under Decision No. 2 should have been increased 15c per hour. Carrier
states that the question now in disputé was submitted to Railway Board of Ad-
justment No. 2 which Board in its decision No. 1056 sustained the decision of
the carrier in its method of classifying and rating these employees as stationary
engineers and that in view of this fact it is not a proper submission to the U. S.
Railroad Labor Board for decision. Decision-Decision No. 2 provides that
increases specified therein shall be added to the rate of pay established by
or under the authority of the U. S. Railroad Administration. Therefore, in
view of the fact that decision rendered by Board of Adjustment No. 2, an
authorized representative of the U. S. Railroad Administration, sustained the
carrier in its classification and rating of these positions the Board decides that
Decision No. 2 has been properly applied and denies claim of the employees
for reclassification and rating. CenRRofNJ-MofW. Decision No. 397.
Question as to whether certain telephone and telegraph_equipment super-
visors shall be permitted to perform mechanic's work. Evidence indicates
that carrier employs three men who are classified as telephone and telegraph
equipment supervisors; paid a monthly salary and allowed actual expenses
while traveling on the carrier's business. Employees contend that these
men are used to perform mechanics' work in violation of Rule 32 of the
National Agreement, and call attention to Decision No. 1682 rendered by
Board of Adjustment No. 2 of the U. S. Railroad Administration regarding
classification of telegraph and telephone supervisors, which decision provided
in effect that said supervisors should not be permitted to perform mechanics'
work. Decision-Labor Board does not construe language of Rule 32 as
prohibiting supervisory employees instructing other employees in the per-
formance of their work whereby to carry out such instructions it is neces-
sary to perform certain mechanics' work, nor is it the Board's construction
of that rule that such supervisory employees are prohibited from performing
emergency work where mechanics are not available. It is, however, the
Board's opinion, based on the evidence before it, that the employees in
question have been performing certain work that should have been properly
assigned to mechanics, which practice is contrary to the intent of the rules
and should be discontinued. CRI&P ShpCrf. Decision No. 405.
Question as to whether rate established by Railroad Administration for
employees classified as check clerks in freight office at certain point shall
continue in effect after expiration of Federal control. During period of
Federal control the positions involved in this dispute were changed from
classification of stevedores paid on hourly basis to check clerks paid on
monthly basis. A dispute arose as to the proper rate of pay for these em-
ployees and decision was issued by the Director General of Railroads in-
creasing the monthly rate, which rate the carrier applied and continued to
pay until the expiration of Federal control when it decreased the monthly
rate to the former basis. The employees contend that the higher rate hav-
ing been authorized by the Director General of Railroads became a part
188
of the National Agreement and should remain in effect as provided in Rule
86 of said agreement. Decision-The Board decides that the rate of the
positions involved in this dispute was the rate established by and under
the authority of the U. S. Railroad Administration and in accordance with the
provisions of Rule 86 of the National Agreement, Decision No. 2 of the
Labor Board, and the Transportation Act, this rate shall remain in effect
until changed by mutual agreement or by decision of the Board. StLSF-Clks.
Decision No. 465.
Question as to proper rate of pay for footboard yardmasters under
Decision No. 2. Carrier states that prior to Federal control it made no dis-
tinction in its foremen, and never recognized any footboard yardmasters.
When Supplement 22 to G. O. 27 was issued by the U. S. Railroad Adminstra-
tion it put into effect the differential of 40c to one of its yard foreman's rates.
When Decision No. 2 came out under Section 4, Article VII thereof, reading
"superseding rates established by or under the authority of the U. S. Rail-
road Administration, and in lieu thereof, etc.," it interpreted the words
"superseded" and "in lieu thereof" to mean the elimination of the differential
rate which was established by the Railroad Administration. Decision-If
the engine foreman in question is required to perform duties of yardmaster
in addition to performing duties as engine foreman, 40c per day in excess of
foreman's rate is just and reasonable and should be applied. Colo&Sou-
Trainmen. Decision No. 484.
Dispute in regard to application of minimum rate of composite mechanic to
certain signal maintainers with less than 4 years experience who were con-
sidered composite mechanics under rulings of the Railroad Administration.
Decision-Evidence indicates that employees in question were classified as com-
posite mechanics in accordance with Interpretation 2 to Supplement 4 to
G. O. 27. Employees who were receiving, prior to July 25, 1918, an amount
equal to or in excess of a minimum or hiring rate paid any craft represented
in the class of which they were composite shall be paid a minimum or hiring
rate of the highest rated craft represented in such composite service. Em-
ployees who, prior to July 25, 1918, were receiving a lower rate than that paid
in any of the crafts of which they were a composite shall receive the step rate
in accordance with their years of experience as outlined in Section (5-a),
Supplement 4 to G. O. 27 with subsequent adjustments. If this decision has
effect of increasing rates of any employees such increased rates shall be made
effective July 1, 1921. C&A-Sig. Decision No. 795.
Question as to proper classification of employees now classified as "switch-·
man and baggage master." Prior to August 30, 1920, these employees were
classified as baggage masters and for a number of years they were regularly
assigned to handling several main line switches per day for the movement of
certain regular passenger trains. On August 30, 1920, at the request of the
trainmen's committee, following memorandum 16-27 of the United States
Railroad Administration, which provides "the term 'switch tender' (ground
switchman) is understood to apply to employees assigned to handling one or
more main line or lead switches in connection with terminals wherever yard
engines are maintained," the payroll classification of these positions was
changed to "switchman and baggage master" and rate of pay was increased
in accordance with rate applicable to switch tenders under Decision No. 2.
Employees claim the term "switch tender," as used in memorandum referred
to means an employee who is assigned to handling a main line or lead switch,
and that the employees involved in this dispute are not so assigned in con-
nection with a terminal where yard engines are maintained, and further con-
tend that these employees devote four or more hours of their time to the work
assigned to baggage masters, and should, therefore, be classified as baggage
masters. Carrier takes position that while employees in question do not handle
switches for yard engines or freight trains, they do handle one or more main
line switches in connection with a terminal where a yard engine is maintained,
and, therefore, come within the scope of the memorandum of the Railroad Ad-
ministration referred to. Decision-Position of carrier sustained. B&M-Bro
of RRStaEmp. Decision No. 765.
When the National Agreement became effective, carrier in question took
189
position that certain stations, about 70 in number, were larger stations, where
the agreement would not apply to the chief clerks to the agents at such points,
while the employees claim that there were no stations on the line that would
come under this classification but later agreed to except ten of the larger
stations. Failing to reach an agreement on all of the stations involved, a
joint submission was made to the United States Railroad Administration and
Board of Adjustment No. 3 issued Decision No. 733, which provides that
chief clerks to local freight agents should be subject to the provisions of the
Clerks' National Agreement. This decision was not put into effect, but after
conferences between the representatives of the employees and the carrier, an
agreement was reached in March, 1921, which provided that chief clerks to the
agents at ten stations enumerated therein should be excepted from the rules of
the Clerks' National Agreement, and that effective April 1, 1921, the agree-
ment would apply to all other chief clerks to freight station agents. Em-
ployees are now requesting additional compensation that would have accrued
to chief clerks at certain of the stations if the rules of the National Agreement
had applied to their positions during the period March 1, 1920, to April 1, 1921.
Carrier contends that at the conferences held in March, 1921, no reference
was made to the question of retroactive pay nor any claim presented by the
employees at that time, and furthermore that it was specifically set forth in
the memorandum of agreement dated March 23, 1921, that it would be effective
April, 1921, and that the employees accepted and promulgated this agreement.
Decision--Claim of employees denied. ACL-Clks. Decision No. 835.
Claim of certain clerk for pay for time absent from duty account of death
in family. Decision-Board reaffirms its direction in previous decisions that
pending decision of the Board, orders, agreements and decisions of the U. S.
Railroad Administration shall remain in effect unless or until changed by mu-
tual agreement between the employees and the carrier. It appears that the
claim presented by the employees has not been considered in conference by
the carrier and employees on a basis of practices in effect prior to Federal
control. The Board, therefore, remands this dispute to employees and carrier
for consideration on basis of past practice, and in event of failure to agree
thereon, it may be resubmitted for decision. This decision is based upon rules
of the Clerks' National Agreement and is not to be construed as indicating
the attitude of the Board on the question of pay for time absent account of
personal reasons. StLSF-Clks. Decision No. 874.
Claim of certain clerical employees for time lost account of illness. De-
cision-The Board has heretofore decided that pending decisions by the Board,
the instructions of the Director, Division of Operation, U. S. Railroad Ad-
ministration, shall remain in effect. It appears that the claim presented has
not been considered in conference by the employees and carrier on basis of past
practice, and the Board, therefore, remands this dispute to the employees for
consideration on this basis. In the event of failure to agree, it may be re-
submitted for decision. This decision is based upon the rules of the National
Agreement and the instructions of the Director, Division of Operation, U. S.
Railroad Administration, and is not to be construed as indicating the attitude
of the Board on the question of pay for time lost account of sickness, remanded
to the employees and the carrier in Decision No. 630. StLSF-Clks. Decisions
Nos. 875, 876, 877, 878, 879.
Question as to proper rate of pay under Decision No. 2 for certain low-
voltage signalmen and signal maintainers. These employees were rated in
accordance with Section (1-a), Article II of Supplement 4 to G. O. 27 (58c).
When Interpretation 2 to Supplement 4 was issued, employees contended that
the men referred to were composite mechanics, and should have been paid as
provided in Section 1, Article II of Supplement 4, namely, 68c per hour.
The carrier disagreed with this contention, and joint submission was filed with
the Railroad Administration. On December 20, 1919, the Railroad Adminis-
tration authorized the application of the 4c per hour specified in the National
Shop Crafts' Agreement to the rates of signal department employees, covered
by Supplement 4 to G. O. 27, establishing the rates of 62c and 72c per hour
respectively. On February 25, 1920, Supplement 28 to G. O. 27, was issued,
which provided that signalmen and signal maintainers covered by Signalmen's
190
Agreement, who were classified and paid in accordance with Section (5-a),
Article I, of Supplement 4, should be paid 68c per hour. This latter rate wäs
the rate these employees were receiving at the termination of Federal con-
trol, and to which the increase specified in Decision No. 2 was added, estab-
lishing a rate of 81c per hour. On November 2, 1920, the decision of the
Director General of Railroads was received in connection with the submission
made which decision provided that "the employees in question are properly classi-
fied as signal maintainers. They perform the duties of composite mechanics
and shall be rated and paid in accordance with Interpretation 2 of Supplement
4 to G. O. 27, from the effective date of said supplement." Employees
contended that this decision provided for the employees in question the rate
of 85c per hour. The carrier did not concur in the views of the employees,
taking the position that these employees were a composite of low-voltage
linemen and signal maintainers, and that under their interpretation of the
Director General's decision, the employees were being properly compensated.
The employees objected to the carrier's interpretation of the Director General's
decision, and the matter was again handled with the United States Rail-
road Administration, and is still pending before the Administration. De-
cision—(a) Based upon evidence in this case, the Board decides that if any
difference of opinion exists as to actual work being performed by these em-
ployees, a proper joint investigation should be made by the duly authorized
representatives of the carrier and the employees, and rate of pay established
accordingly; (b) in regard to application of Decision No. 2, the Board does
not feel that the question is properly before it, in that the matter is still
one of dispute between the employees and the United States Railroad Adminis-
tration. If, after definite understanding or ruling from the Administration,
it is the desire of employees to again bring the matter to the attention of
the Board, such procedure may be followed after proper compliance with
the provisions of the Transportation Act. SP-Sign. Decision No. 903.
RAILROAD OPERATED FLOATING EQUIPMENT. See "Marine
Employees."
RAILROAD OPERATED NON-SELF PROPELLED LIGHTERS
AND COVERED BARGES.
Increases granted by Labor Board to lighter captains on. See "Decision 4."
RAILWAY EXPRESS EMPLOYEES.
Increases granted by Labor Board to. See "Decision 3." Decreases,
effective August 1, 1921, covering. See "Decision 217."
RATES OF PAY.
(For Reduction of, see "Reduction of Rates of Pay.")
(For Readjustment of, see "Readjustment of Rates of Pay.")
(For Inequalities in, see "Inequalities—Adjustment_of.")
(For Requests for Increases in-See "Increases-Requests for.")
(For Classification of-See "Classification of Positions, Service and
Rates.")
Rates granted railroad employees by Labor Board. Decision No. 2.´
Rates granted express employees by Labor Board. Decision No. 3.
Rates granted Lighter Captains in Port of New York. Decision No. 4.
Question as to whether Sec. 6, Art. XIII, Decision 2, requires the rail-
road to compile a list of rates of pay and incorporate such list into the agree-
ment. Decision-No. MP-Clerks. Decision No. 53.
RATING OF POSITIONS. See "Positions-Rating of."
READJUSTMENT OF RATES OF PAY.
Question as to whether rearrangement of work and readjustment of rates
of pay of certain positions brought about by merger of two departments, is
in conflict with Rules 71 and 84 of the Clerks' National Agreement, employees
contending that the duties have not been changed. Decision-Position of car-
rier sustained. C&NW-Clerks. Decision No. 183.
191
•
Claim that reassignment of work and readjustment of rates of pay of
certain positions was in conflict with Rule 91 of Express Employees' Agree-
ment. Decision-Position of company sustained. ARECo-Clerks. Decision
No. 127.
REASSIGNMENT OF WORK.
Claim that reassignment of work and readjustment of rates of pay of cer-
tain positions was in conflict with Rule 91 of Express Employees' Agreement.
Decision-Position of company sustained. ARECo-Clerks. Decision No. 127.
Question as to whether rearrangement of work and readjustment of rates
of pay of certain positions brought about by merger of two departments,
is in conflict with Rules 71 and 84 of the Clerks' National Agreement, employ-
ees contending that the duties have not been changed. Decision-Position of
carrier sustained. C&NW-Clerks. Decision No. 183.
RECLASSIFYING POSITIONS. See "Classification of Positions, Serv-
ice and Rates."
RED CAPS.
Request for increases for. See "Baggage and Parcel Room Employees.”
Claim that classification of position as "red cap" is improper, as major
portion of the work performed is work generally recognized as janitor's work,
and position should, therefore, come within the scope of the Clerks' National
Agreement and be subject to the provisions thereof. Decision-Position in
question is properly classified as red cap, and, therefore, does not come within
the scope of the Clerks' National Agreement as defined in Article I thereof
SP-Clks. Decision No. 246.
REDUCTION OF ASSIGNED HOURS.
Claim of certain clerks for payment for overtime worked in excess of 8
hours per day. Prior to January 1, 1919, the employees involved were working
52 hours per week. They made request that their hours of service be reduced
to 48 hours per week and arranged so that they would work 834 hours on week
days and 44 hours on Saturday, which arrangement was agreed to by the
carrier and placed in effect on January 1, 1919, and continued in effect after
the issuance of the Clerks' National Agreement, effective January 1, 1920.
On October, 1920, employees made claim that all employees who had worked
under this arrangement should be paid overtime after 8 hours from the ef-
fective date of the Clerks' National Agreement. On December 16, 1920, an
agreement was entered into between the employees and the Superintendent of
Terminals at the point in question, establishing an 8 hour day for the first
five days of the week and a 5 hour day on Saturdays in consideration of which
the employees agreed to waive all claims for overtime for the first five days of
the week which had been worked prior to December 16, 1920. On January 31.
1921, carrier cancelled the agreement of December 16, 1920, and gave notice
to the employees that thereafter the hours of service would be 8 per day six
days per week, taking the position that the officer who entered into the agree-
ment in question exceeded his authority in doing so. Employees entered pro-
test and on February 7, 1921, an agreement was made restoring the conditions
which extended from January 1, 1919, to December 16, 1920, the employees
waiving all claims for overtime which might be worked while this agreement
was in effect pending settlement of their claim for overtime worked from
effective date of Clerks' National Agreement to December 16, 1920. At hear-
ing conducted by the Board the employees modiñed their request to cover the
period from March 1, 1920, to December 16, 1920. Employees also contend
for continuance of the 45-hour week under Rule 57 of National Agreement, as
well as under the local agreement of December 16, 1920. Carrier takes po-
sition that the Labor Board has no jurisdiction in this case, claiming that Board
has no authority to make any decision either denying or sustaining a claim
for "wages due"; that this is a matter for the courts to determine under the
working agreement in effect during the period for which the claim is made.
Carrier further contends that all previous contracts were annulled by the
192
agreement of February 7, 1921, that the claim for overtime is not justified
inasmuch as these employees were by an agreement working a 48-hour week and
the hours were changed at their request in order that they might be off Satur-
day afternoons and that the 45-hour week should not be allowed because agree-
ment of February 7, 1921, provided for a 48-hour week. Decision-Board
took jurisdiction in this dispute stating that it has the authority to grant or
deny claim for overtime; and decides that as it is conclusively shown that the
employees requested and were granted a 48-hour week on January 1, 1919,
and the hours were arranged to suit their convenience the claim for overtime for
work performed in excess of 8 hours the first five days of the week is denied;
and that for the reasons herein set forth in denying the claim for overtime
the Board denies the request for the establishment of a 45-hour week and
considers that it is a question to be determined as a part of the submission
made as a result of the conference held under Decision No. 119. CI&L-Clks.
Decision No. 607.
REDUCTION OF FORCE.
Where rule agreed to with employees in Car Department represented by
American Federation of Railroad Workers provides for reducing hours to
forty per week before force is reduced, and where for employees in same
department represented by American Federation of Labor rules of the National
Shop Agreement govern, and which provide for reducing the force, when
necessary to reduce expenses; question as to which set of rules are valid and
in effect. Decided that rules governing each of the organizations are in
effect for employees represented by each of the said organizations. NYC
(West)-AFofRRW-AFofL. Decision No. 37.
Claim of foreman for compensation during period from December 19 to
January 3 when extra gang over which he had charge was laid off. Em-
ployees call attention to rules (c-2) and (f) of Article II of National Main-
tenance of Way Agreement, contending that the foreman was not instructed
regarding his duties during period referred to and as he was employed by the
month and had not asked for leave of absence he was still subject to in-
structions of the road master, who should have issued instructions for his re-
tention and guidance during time extra force was laid off. Decision-Rules
quoted in employees' position expressly provide for retention of senior mer
in case of force reduction or temporary assignment; however, it does not appear
from evidence that the employee in question made the proper effort to take
advantage of these provisions, and claim for compensation for period laid off
is therefore denied. N&W-MofW. Decision No. 231.
Complaint against continuance of trainmen's schedule rule relating to re-
duction of force and filling of vacancies, and which rule specifies that negroes
are not to be used as flagmen, except that those in that service may be retained
therein with their seniority rights; it being alleged that in some instances
senior white flagmen bid in positions as head brakemen for purpose of dis-
placing colored head brakemen with less service age, leaving vacant position
as flagmen, for which position colored men are not eligible, which is then bid
in by junior white men. Decision-After careful consideration of evidence
submitted, the Board decides that the schedule containing the rule in question
was negotiated by representatives of a majority of the class of employees in-
terested. The Board cannot, however, approve of any discrimination in favor
of or against either white or colored employees in the application of the pro-
visions of the rule. Complaint is dismissed and request denied. IC-Y&MV—
AssnColRyTr. Decision No. 307.
Where carrier, for purpose of reducing expenses, laid off certain junior
laborers and carpenters and certain other entire gangs, also reduced the
number of days worked by other gangs and foremen one and two days per
week, employees contend that such method was contrary to Section (1), Ār-
ticle V, of the National Agreement, and claim that men affected should be
compensated for all time lost. Decision-Board decides carrier did not violate
provisions of agreement in making reductions outlined, and claim for time lost
is, therefore, denied. However, when it becomes necessary to reduce expenses
the Board suggests that conference be held in effort to work out a method of
193
reduction that will be mutually agreeable to both parties. CI&W-MofW.
Decision No. 334.
Question as to whether carrier has the right in reducing force to lay off
certain section laborers and retain other employees of this class who are
junior in the service. In making a reduction in force of 50 men on a certain
section the carrier laid off 10 section laborers who held seniority rights over
certain other employees who were retained in the service, and the employees
claim that the carrier in taking this action has violated the provisions of Sec-
tion 3 (c), Article II of the National Maintenance of Way Agreement. Car-
rier takes position that this section of Article II gives them the right to retain
employees capable of performing the work and that the men involved were
members of extra gangs who had been put on to take care of emergency work
and whose services were not satisfactory. Decision-The employees offered
no evidence in refutation of the carrier's statement that the services of the
employees in question were unsatisfactory, and therefore, based upon the
evidence before it, the Board decides that the carrier was within its rights in
reducing the forces in the manner outlined. SP-MofW. Decision No. 408.
At a certain outlying point where several switch engines used in mine
service layover there were employed for several years prior to October, 1920,
one boilermaker, one hostler, one hostler helper, two engine watchmen, two
fire cleaners, and one supply man. On or about October 1, 1920, carrier
posted five day notice and laid off the boilermaker who was the only mechanic
employed at the point in question. At the expiration of the notice another
boilermaker was brought from another division and assigned as a working
foreman, and he performs all of the mechanic's work previously done by
the boilermaker in question, and in addition thereto exercises supervision
over other employees at this point. Employees contend that Rules 18 and
27 of the National Agreement were violated and request that the boilermaker
laid off be returned to his job and allowed pay for time lost, while the carrier
contends that it was entirely within its rights in assigning a working fore-
man under the provisions of Rule 32. Decision-While the Board recognizes
the right of the carrier to appoint employees of its own selection to important
supervisory positions it does not feel that it was the intent of the rules as
incorporated in the National Agreement to permit the carrier to displace
employees at small outlying points by the exercise of this privilege without
good and sufficient reasons, and decides in this particular dispute that the
carrier was not justified in displacing this boilermaker, the only mechanic
employed at the point in question, and that he should be reinstated to his
former position with seniority rights unimpaired; but in view of his declina-
tion of employment at another point he shall only be reimbursed to the extent
that he would have suffered a wage loss, if any, on the basis of what he would
have earned in the position offered, as compared with what he would have
earned on his regular position. MP-ShpCrf. Decision No. 409.
Question as to right of pumper filling second shift at certain point to
exercise his seniority rights to first-shift position when the second-shift posi-
tion was abolished. This pumper, although holding seniority over the first-
trick man, was denied the right to displace first-trick pumper, but not denied
the right to displace pumper with the least seniority rights in the seniority
district in question. Subsequently, in disposing of this grievance the manage-
ment reached agreement with the organization that the last sentence of Sec-
tion (e), Article II, of the National Maintenance of Way Agreement would
apply to pumpers, it being the understanding that said agreement would estab-
lish a precedent for handling future cases, and carrier declined to honor claim
for actual wage loss to the second-trick pumper from the time his trick was
cut off until he was placed upon the first trick. Employees are now contending
that under Section (c-2) of Article II of the agreement that this pumper
should have been placed on the first-trick position and therefore claim that he
is entitled to time lost. Decision-Claim denied. N&W-MofW. Decision
No. 521.
·
Question as to seniority rights of certain track laborers in service less than
six months who were laid off account reduction in force and were not allowed
to displace other laborers junior to them in the service. Carrier takes the
194
position that under Section (h), Article II, of the National Maintenance of
Way Agreement these laborers, having been in the service less than six months,
were not under the provisions of the agreement nor entitled to any seniority
rights, and it was entirely within its rights in displacing these laborers when
reducing its force. Employees contend that their understanding of Section (h)
is that the names of employees will not appear on the roster until six months'
service, but that does not affect their seniority rights in the service and that
any employees in service should receive their seniority rights in accordance
with Section (d-1), Article II, of the agreement. Decision-While the Board
feels that the principles of seniority should be adhered to as closely as possible
when reducing forces, it does not construe the provisions of the agreement
as making it compulsory on the carrier to regard seniority of employees in
question until they have been in the service six months, and claim of employees
is therefore denied. BR&P-MofW. Decision No. 523.
Claim of certain clerks for right to exercise seniority in connection with
reduction of force. Case withdrawn by employees and file closed. MichCent—
Clerks. Decision No. 657. ACL-Clerks. Decision No. 660.
Dispute with reference to certain employee being relieved from service
in connection with reduction of force and employees with less seniority re-
tained. Carrier takes the position that employee in question was a minor and
that when it became necessary to reduce the force there was no position in
the service in which, under the rules of the carrier, a minor could be employed
and further that under the rules of the agreement the exercise of seniority
in the reduction of force is subject to fitness and ability. Decision-Position
of carrier is sustained. ARE-Clerks. Decision No. 687.
Dispute in regard to certain sheet-metal workers who held seniority over
certain men younger in the service being laid off when force was reduced.
Employees contend that there was only one seniority roster for sheet-metal
workers at the point in question, and that this employee held seniority over
certain men who were retained; that his experience in certain classes of sheet-
metal work qualified him for the positions filled by the younger men retained,
and that he should at least have been given a fair trial to determine whether
or not he was qualified. Carrier takes position that work performed by this
employee has been that of tinsmith and that his experience in pipe fitting did
not warrant the displacement of employees experienced in that line of work.
Decision-It is agreed that the employee in question is classified and rated
in accordance with the shop-crafts agreement; that but one seniority roster
was kept of sheet-metal workers at the point in question, and that this em-
ployee held seniority over certain men who were retained. Therefore, the
Board decides that in view of the fact that no distinction was made in the
shop-crafts agreement between the different classes of sheet-metal workers'
work, this employee was entitled to a trial in one of the positions held by
junior men and shall be paid for the period out of service, less any amount
he may have earned in other employment. NYC-ShopCrafts. Decision
No. 768.
Question as to seniority rights of certain coal-chute employees to positions
in and around shops and roundhouses. For the purpose of reducing expenses
the carrier dispensed with certain employees connected with the operation
of coal chutes and transferred such work to the mechanical department. In
taking this action employees working at coal chutes were laid off and the
work performed by them was distributed among the mechanical department
employees at certain point. The positions of the coal-chute employees were
not filled nor was the force in the mechanical department increased to take
care of this work when it was transferred. This arrangement resulted in
the laying off of several employees at the coal chutes who held longer service
records than the men in the mechanical department to whom their work was
transferred, and the employees are claiming that these coal-chute employees
should have been privileged to exercise their seniority and to have displaced
younger employees in the mechanical department. Carrier takes position that
it was justified in making the arrangement outlined and further that it could
not be expected that the carrier would dismiss men in the mechanical depart-
ment doing more or less semi-skilled work to make place for men whose
195
duties were that of common laborers. Decision-While evidence does not
justify the charge that the seniority rules were violated by the carrier, it is
quite clear that the seniority rules were intended to protect senior men when
a change was made that affected their seniority and retention in the service.
Board decides, therefore, that immediately upon receipt of this decision con-
ferences shall be held between the duly authorized representatives of the
carrier and the employees directly interested, and where it is found that an
employee senior in point of service is reasonably capable of performing the
work, such senior employee shall displace a junior employee. Request for pay
for time lost is denied, but shall not be construed to apply to any dispute for
time lost that may arise from failure to fairly apply this decision. D&H—
MofW. Decision No. 780.
Claim of certain carpenters for reinstatement, without loss of seniority,
and pay for time lost while held out of service and men younger in the
service retained, employees contending that the laying off of these men was
contrary to the meaning and intent of Section (c-2), Article II, of the
agreement, which provides that when a force is reduced the senior men in
the sub-department on the seniority district capable of doing the work shall
be retained. Decision-Board recognizes that the language of the rule referred
to leaves the matter largely in the hands of the carrier to determine whether
or not an employee is capable of doing the work. The Board also recognizes
-and without any reflection as to the motive or future intention of any
carrier or organization—that unless some restriction is placed upon that por-
tion of the rule reading "capable of doing the work" it would be subject to
application that would minimize, if not entirely destroy, the principle of
seniority. The Board is therefore of opinion that when the reduction in
forces, such as outlined in this decision, becomes necessary, and when the
question as to the capabilities of employees is involved, that careful considera-
tion should be given to qualifications and, if practicable, conference held
between the representatives of the respective parties in an effort to arrive at
a mutual understanding prior to such reduction in force. Claim for reinstate-
ment of the men involved in this particular dispute is denied. DL&W-MofW.
Decision No. 807.
REDUCTION OF RATES OF PAY.
Where road, party to Decision 2, served thirty days advance notice that
effective February 1, 1921, pay of all employees would be reduced by one-half
of sum of all increases effective since December 31, 1917, due to financial
inability of road to pay present wages, question as to right of road to make
such reductions without authority of Labor Board. Decision-Board with-
out jurisdiction until Sec. 301 of Transportation Act has been complied with
and conference held between parties concerned as to whether present wages
are just and reasonable. AB&A-EFC&T-Clks-SC-Tel-MofW-Disprs.
Decision No. 89.
Where road, party to Decision 2, served thirty days advance notice that
on February 1, 1921, pay of all employees would be reduced to basis in effect
on April 30, 1920, due to financial inability of road to pay present wages, and
on February first actually put such reduced rates into effect, question as to
right of road to make such reduction without authority of Labor Board. De-
cision-Board without jurisdiction until Sec. 301 of Transportation Act has
been complied with and conference held between parties concerned as to whether
present wages are just and reasonable, or if conference is refused Board will
proceed under Sec. 313 of the Act. M&NA-EFC&T-Disprs-SC-Telgrs.
Decision No. 90.
Where road, party to Decision 2 of Labor Board, reduced wages, made
deductions in earnings, and altered working conditions of certain classes
of employees, without first seeking conference with representatives of em-
ployees interested, or obtaining consent of said employees, question as to
whether Decision 2 was violated by road concerned. Decision-Carrier vio-
lated Decision 2 of Labor Board and acted in conflict with provisions of
Transportation Act. Erie-MofW-ATDA. Decision No. 91.
Request of New York Central Railroad for reduction in rates of pay of
196
unskilled labor, and that, pending final decision on such request, the Board
issued a provisional order authorizing the road to pay its unskilled labor
rates of wages less than those determined to be just and reasonable by Decision
2; the final decision to be retroactive to April 1, 1921. Decision-Request for
provisional order denied. NYC-Misc. organizations. (See Decision.) De-
cision No. 111.
Where road, party to Decision 2, about December 1, 1920, issued an order
putting into effect reduced rates of pay and changed working conditions, with-
out first seeking or holding conferences with representatives of employees con-
cerned, question as to whether Decision 2 was violated by road concerned-
road's contention being that positions involved were abolished and men re-
employed on individual contracts. Decision-Road violated Decision 2 of
Labor Board, and should restore the said positions and the pay, duties and
obligations of said positions to what they were on July 20, 1920, as established
by Decision 2; and further that persons serving in said positions just prior
to effective date of carrier's order be reinstated, if they so desire, and receive
pay equal to what they would have received if occupying such positions, at
the rate provided by Decision 2, from the date removed or reduced in pay
to date of reinstatement, less any amount that may have been earned by
personal service in the meantime. StLSW-MofW. Decision No. 120.
Petition of carrier for rehearing on Decision 120. Denied. StLSW.
cision No. 149.
De-
Request of carrier for reduction in rates of pay and changes in rules and
working conditions of train and engine employees. Decision-Apply decreases
authorized by Decision 147, effective July 1, 1921-representatives of carrier
and employees to confer and decide so much of dispute concerning rules as
may be possible, referring back to Board the unsettled rules, if any; and as
soon as possible after July 1, 1921, the Board will promulgate such rules as it
determines to be just and reasonable to cover any working conditions regarding
which parties may have failed of agreement, such rules to be effective as of
July 1, 1921. D&SL-EFC&T. Decision No. 148.
Where Receiver of road, party to Decision 2 of Labor Board, reduced
wages of employees by order of the Court, and where employees involved,
upon such reduction being put into effect, left the service of the carrier in
concert, question as to violation of Decision 2 and Transportation Act by Re-
ceiver of road and by organizations of employees concerned. Decision (1)
Receiver violated Decision 2 by failure to hold conference as directed by
Board's Decision No. 89, and, in case of disagreement, referring dispute to
Board for decision; putting into effect instead the wage reduction ordered
by the Court, which latter action was contrary to the letter and spirit of the
Transportation Act. (2) Board cannot condone what in itself was wrongful
act on part of employees, whose duty, on learning that Receiver would not
join in referring dispute to the Board, was to themselves refer it to the Board.
(3) Due to complication resulting from the strike, Labor Board believes there
is nothing to be gained at the moment by requesting Court to recall its order
of February 28th and to direct reinstatement of former employees; it does,
however, request the Court to direct the Receiver to confer with the petitioners
upon question of what constitutes just and reasonable wages, etc., and in case
of disagreement to refer dispute to Board for decision. (4) Board also re-
quests petitioners to attempt again to confer with Receiver regarding just-
ness and reasonableness of wages and in case of failure to agree to submit dis-
pute to Board for decision. (5) As the U. S. District Court of the Northern
District of Georgia is exercising jurisdiction in regard to matter of wages
for the employees, in order to prevent conflict of jurisdiction Board will take
no further action in the matter until the Court shall approve or deny the
Board's requests. AB&A-Engrs. et al. Decision No. 121.
Question as to whether dispute on proposed reduction in wages, application
for decision having been filed with Board by carrier, is properly before the
Board, representatives of employees contending that conferences as contem-
plated in Section 301 of Transportation Act had not been held. Decision—
Letter and spirit of Section 301 of Transportation Act have not been com-
plied with by the carrier, and will not have been complied with until carrier
197
shall have met in conference or endeavored to meet in conference the duly
designated representatives of the employees directly interested in the dispute,
and in case of disagreement shall have properly certified the dispute to the
Board. The majority of such employees shall have the right to select their
said representatives as provided in Principle 15, Decision 119. Pullman Co-
ShCrafts. Decision No. 174.
Request of certain carriers for reduction in rates of pay of certain classes
of employees. Decision-Granted, effective July 1, 1921. (See decisions for
scope of decreases and carriers and employees affected.) Decision 147, and
Addenda. Decision Nos. 214, 215 and Add. 1 to 215.
Request of American Railway Express Co. for reduction in rates of pay
of employees and subordinate officials. Decision-Granted, effective August
1, 1921. (See decision for scope of decreases and employees affected.) De-
cision No. 217.
Dispute as to what shall constitute just and reasonable wages for certain
clerks, agents, telegraphers, foremen and laborers as enumerated in this deci-
sion. Addendum 2 to Decision No. 147 authorizes the carrier to make deduc-
tions from the rates of specified classes of employees who had been increased
under Decision No. 2 and provided that employees who had been otherwise
increased should be covered by a separate decision, and this decision covers
the latter class. Decision-Effective October 16, 1921, rates of wages for
specified classes of employees listed shall be established by deducting from
the amount of increases granted subsequent to February 29, 1920, 60 per cent
of such increases. SD&A-(See Decision for Employees Affected). Decision
No. 228.
Request of carrier for authority to reduce rates of pay of enginemen,
motormen and trainmen 25 per cent. Decision-Effective October 16, 1921,
present rates of pay of engineers, motormen, firemen, conductors and brake-
men shall be reduced twenty (20) per cent, which, taking into consideration.
all the conditions and circumstances as contemplated by Transportation Act,
1920, including financial condition of carrier, i. e., its earnings, cost of opera-
tion, etc., will establish just and reasonable wages. ElectricShortLineRy—
EFC&T. Decision No. 229.
Request of carrier for authority to revise rules and working conditions
and rates of pay for train and engine service employees, maintenance of equip-
ment employees, station agents, assistant station agents and telegraph opera-
tors. Decision-Board is sympathetic with principle that "inability of the
carrier to pay" is not controlling factor in fixing wages, but recognizes that
it is entitled to secondary consideration with certain type of carrier dependent
almost entirely on local business or whose principal function in the final
analysis is development and upbuilding of a new or comparatively new coun-
try. It has given careful consideration to the seven points laid down in the
Transportation Act, to other relevant circumstances, as well as the peculiar
conditions surrounding the operation of this carrier, and decides that effective
November 1, 1921, rates of pay specified in this decision are authorized. Rules
and working conditions will be reserved for later hearing, as organizations
of train and engine service and station telegraph service announced they were
not prepared to proceed with this question. (Decision dissented from by
A. O. Wharton, of the Board, on the grounds of the unjust and unreasonable
treatment accorded shop employees under the decision and the indefensibly
low rates established for laborers, reciting the various reasons therefor.
W. L. McMenimen, of the Board, also states he is not in accord with ma-
jority decision and cannot concur in dissenting opinion.) NOGN-EFCT—
Telgrs-ShCfts. Decision No. 290.
Question as to whether carrier has "right to arbitrarily reduce wages of
maintenance of way employees without authorization" from the Labor Board
or consent of the employees to such reduction. Decision-No. SooCity Term
Co-MofW. Decision No. 413.
Request of carrier for authority to reduce rates of pay for its employees
in train and engine service, station and telegraph service, maintenance of
equipment and maintenance of way departments. On July 31, 1921, owing
to inability to meet operating expenses, this carrier ceased operation. Under
198
date of October 10, 1921, the representative of the receiver addressed to the
representatives of the organization whose members were previously employed
by the carrier a notice of desire to resume operations, under certain condi-
tions specifically set forth therein, and employees were requested to confer
with representatives of the carrier, with a view of considering resumption of
operations under a reduced scale of wages. Conferences were held, but failed
of agreement on the question of just and reasonable wages, and on December
20, 1921, the carrier filed with the Board an application for decision, stating
that conferences with the employees with reference to the establishment of
just and reasonable wages had been held, and requested the Board to grant
a hearing for consideration of the wages which it proposed to put into effect,
which proposal__contemplated a 25 per cent reduction below the decreases
authorized by Decision No. 147. At the hearing, the employees contended
that proper conferences had not been held, in compliance with Section 301 of
the Transportation Act, and requested that the Board give consideration only
to the question of jurisdiction, and if the Board decided that it had jurisdic-
tion to set a further hearing for the discussion of the merits of the carrier's
proposal. Decision-The Board takes jurisdiction of this dispute and decides
that the proposition contained in the submission made by the representatives
of the carrier, dated October 10, 1921, shall be accepted by the employees,
based upon a continuation of the agreements as working conditions that were
in effect as of January 1, 1921, or, in lieu thereof, the decisions of Board as
rendered in connection with rules which superseded the several agreements
in effect as of January 1, 1921. The Board further states that while the
matter is not in issue at this time, it recommends that all former employees,
parties to this dispute, be reinstated with the continuity of their seniority unim-
paired. Conferences to be held between the representatives of the employees,
parties to this dispute, and the carrier, not later than March 1, 1922, to properly
and fairly apply this decision. M&NA-EFTC-Disprs-ShCfts-MofW-
Telegrs. Decision No. 724.
Question as to whether rules and regulations in effect on the American Rail-
way Express Company were binding upon the Southeastern Express Company
when the latter company commenced operation on the line of the carrier over
which the American Railway Express Company operated prior to May 1, 1921.
Decision-Board decides that the Southeastern Express Company was not
bound by any rules and regulations of employment previously in effect for
employees of the American Railway Express Company. Dissenting opinion
filed by Board Member Wharton, who takes the position that he cannot sub-
scribe to any procedure which in effect reduces wage and working conditions
adversely affecting the employees in the service of a carrier, unless or until the
intent and spirit of the law has been complied with, and where disagreement
results, the dispute is submitted to the Board, and decided upon its merits,
that when the Southeastern Express Company commenced actual operation
on May 1, 1921, it began performing the same identical service as that of the
American Railway Express Company and continued in its service practically
all of the employees who had been in the service of the American Railway
Express Company, but established lower rates of pay and less favorable work-
ing conditions than those in effect on the American Railway Express Com-
pany, and that neither the provisions of the Transportation Act, nor decisions
or rules of procedure promulgated by the Labor Board were observed by this
carrier in fixing wage rates or conditions of employment. SEECo-Clks.
Decision No. 821.
Dispute with reference to application of decreases in rates of pay authorized
in Decision No. 217 to employees of the Southeastern Express Company. On
July 11, 1921, the Labor Board rendered Decision No. 217 authorizing certain
decreases for employees of the American Railway Express Company. The
Southeastern Express Company was not a party to the dispute upon which
Decision No. 217 was rendered, but the decreases authorized therein were ap-
plied to certain employees in its service Employees contend that this action
on part of the carrier should not have been taken without proper conference
and agreement with the employees. Decision-Board decides that the South-
eastern Express Company, in reducing wages without seeking conference with
199
the representatives of the employees interested, has acted in conflict with
Section 301 of the Transportation Act, 1920, and with Order No. 1 of the
Board, and that it shall restore to all employees affected by the application of
said decision the difference between the rates of pay they have received since
August 1, 1921, and the rates of pay they would have received had the wages
in force during the period prior to that date remained in effect. SEE—Clks.
Decision No. 822.
Dispute regarding alleged unauthorized reduction of wages of certain em-
ployees engaged in handling baggage and mail at certain point. On April 1,
1920, an agreement was entered into between the employees and carrier
establishing certain specified daily rates. When Decision No. 2 was issued,
effective May 1, 1920, an increase of 13 cents per hour was added to the rates
established by agreement on April 1, 1920, which rates were continued in
effect until June 1, 1921, when the carrier applied a decrease of 44 cents per
hour without conference with the employees or approval of the Labor Board,
and when Decision No. 147 was issued, effective July 1, 1921, a further de-
crease of 10 cents per hour was applied. Carrier contends that increases
granted the employees on April 1, 1920, were for the purpose of preventing
a suspension of work, and inasmuch as the rates of pay thus produced were
not established by any order of the Railroad Administration, the carrier has
the right to return, at any time, to rates not less than those established by
the Administration. Decision-Inasmuch as the rates established under agree-
ment of April 1, 1920, were used as the basis of applying increases provided in
Decision No. 2, and paid for a period of 13 months, the Board decides that
the reduction made by the carrier on June 1, 1921, without conference or
agreement with the employees or approval of the Labor Board was improper,
and the employees affected should be reimbursed for the difference between
the wages they have received since June 1, 1921, and the wages they would
have received if the unauthorized reduction had not been made. KCT—Clks.
Decision No. 854.
Application of the Southeastern Express Company for rehearing on De-
cision No. 822, in which it was decided that the Southeastern Express Com-
pany in reducing wages without seeking conference with the representatives
of the employees interested, had acted in conflict with Section 301 of the
Transportation Act, 1920, and in conflict with Order No. 1 of the Labor
Board and that wages previously in effect should be restored and the em-
ployees affected paid the difference between the rates they have received
since August 1, 1921, and the rates they would have received had the wages
in force during the period prior to that date remained in effect. Decision-
The Board, after due consideration of the motion of the carrier named,
for rehearing of the dispute referred to overruled said motion and declined
to reopen said case. SEECO-Decision No. 949.
Request of Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Hand-
lers, Express and Station Employees for rehearing on Decision No. 821, in
which it was decided that rules and regulations, and conditions of employment
in effect on the American Railway Express Company were not binding upon
the Southern Express Company when that company commenced operation on
the lines of the carrier over which the American Railway Express Company
operated prior to May 1, 1921. Decision-The Board, after due consideration
of the motion of the employees named, for rehearing of the dispute referred
to overruled said motion and declined to reopen said case. Clks. Decision No.
948.
REDUCTION OF WORKING DAYS.
Question as to whether Section 1, Article V of the National Maintenance
of Way Agreement was violated when working days were reduced to 5 per
week after extensive reduction in force had been made. Employees contend
that rule referred to was violated in reducing number of days per week, and
employees involved should be paid for all time so laid off. Decision-Board
decides that carrier did not violate the meaning and intent of Section 1,
Article V of the agreement and therefore, denies the claim for payment ac-
count of reduction in the days per week as outlined. Centralof NJ-MofW.
Decision No. 519.
200
Claim of certain employee for reimbursement for time lost incident to re-
duction in days of regular weekly assignment. Account decrease in business
certain employees were required to work 42 days a week or 20 days per
month which resulted in a reduction in their earnings. Employees contend
that this action on the part of the carrier was in conflict with Rule 66 of the
Clerks' National Agreement. Decision-Board decides that reduction of the
days work below six per week was in violation of Rule 66 of the agreement
and that the clerk in question shall be reimbursed for the difference between the
compensation he received since reduction went into effect and compensation he
would have received if he had been permitted to work the full number of
hours constituting his regular assignment. G&SI-Clerks. Decision No. 572.
Claim of certain daily rates employees for pay for Saturdays during certain
period on which days they were notified in advance not to work. It appears
that following conference with representatives of the employees arrangements
were made for one of each of the seven gangs handling freight at the station
in question to lay off one day each alternate week. Subsequently it was ar-
ranged to close the warehouse on Saturday of each week. Employees claim
that this latter arrangement was made without conference or their consent,
whereas carrier states, and it is not denied, that at least one of the com-
mitteemen representing the employees at the point in question stated that the
arrangement for closing the freight house on Saturday of each week was
more desirable than laying off one gang each alternate week. Decision-
Board decides that inasmuch as the employees accepted this arrangement
without complaint and made no protest until five days after the six day week
had been restored, claim of employees is denied. PM-Clerks. Decision
No. 640.
Question as to whether it is permissible to assign coal chute foreman to
work a less number of hours or days than laborers supervised. During a
certain period the laborers in this foreman's crew were required to work 10
hours per day and also on Sundays and holidays, while the foreman was as-
signed to work only 9 hours with no Sunday or holiday work, and employees
contend that Section (a), Article XI of Supplement 8 to G. O. 27 has not
been complied with. Decision-Board cannot find that carrier has violated
any rule or agreement in handling this matter and accordingly sustains the
carrier's position. C&NW-MofW. Decision No. 713.
In order to effect certain economies and avoid a reduction in force, carrier
circulated a petition among the employees for purpose of securing their con-
sent to a reduction in the number of working days to five per week, which
petition was signed unanimously and the five-day per week assignment placed
in effect. Employees are now contending that this change in the weekly as-
signment, below six days, constituted a violation of Rule 66, and request that
employees involved be reimbursed for the day of each week that they were
laid off during the period said arrangement was in effect. Decision-Claim of
employees denied. LV-Clks. Decision No. 732.
Question as to right of carrier to lay off entire force of laborers and
their gang leaders in the stores and supply department on Saturday of each
week in order to curtail expenses. Employees contend that carrier has no
right to lay off the entire force one day each week when the proper reduction
in expense can be accomplished by first laying off the junior men in the gangs,
citing Section 1, Article V of the national agreement in support of their
contention, and claiming that the men in question are entitled to pay for each
and every Saturday lost account of said reduction. Decision-Board decides.
that carrier did not violate the meaning and intent of Section 1, Article V,
and denies payment account reduction in the days per week as outlined.
CI&L-MofW. Decision No. 771.
Dispute regarding right of carrier to close telegraph office on certain days
of the week on account of fluctuation in business. Employees contend that
Paragraph (b), Article X, of the agreement provides for the payment of
overtime for work performed in excess of regular hours; that under said
paragraph carrier pays for all work performed by employees outside of regular
hours at the overtime rate, thus indicating that assigned hours are considered
regular hours and that Paragraph (e) of the same article reading "employees
201
will not be required to suspend work during regular hours or to absorb over-
time" prohibits the carrier from suspending an employee during his regular
hours and certain specified holidays. Carrier takes the position that Paragraph
(e) of Article X does not cover a case where offices are closed on certain
days of the week on account of sudden fluctuation of business, where there
is no necessity for the services of a telegrapher but that the rule was intended
to prevent suspending an employee for a portion of the day and pay him for
a fractional part thereof, and further contends that to agree to the conten-
tions of the employees would guarantee pay for 306 days each calendar year
whether employees worked or not. Decision-Claim of employees denied.
B&O-Tel. Decision No. 789.
Where roadway gang was laid off one day per week for certain period,
claim is made by foreman who supervised this gang, and who was paid on a
monthly basis, for time deducted from his pay on the days on which the
gang was laid off. Decision- (a) If foreman is compensated on a monthly
basis for all services rendered, not including the accepted services provided
for in Section (h) of Article V, including time worked in excess of the
regular hours or day's assignment for the general force, it is clearly the
intent of Section (h) that such foreman would receive not less than the
monthly rate so established, provided he was ready and available to per-
form the service required; (b) if foreman is compensated on a monthly basis.
and was paid overtime for work performed after 8 hours and all work per-
formed on Sundays and holidays, no valid claim can be made for time lost
under the provisions of Section (h), Article V, of the agreement, BR&P-
MofW. Decision No. 896.
REFUNDS.
Claim of engineers and firemen for refund of moneys deducted from their
pay to cover alleged overpayments. Sustained. D&SL-EFCT. Decision
Nos. 21, 22 and 23.
Claim of certain employee for refund of cash fare paid for trip be-
tween certain points. Employee in question made request for transfer to
another point, which request was granted by carrier and arrangements
made for the transfer and bulletining of his run. Request for transportation
for himself and family was made, but employee left prior to receipt of
the transportation, and is now claiming refund of the amount of cash fare
paid by him for the trip in question. Decision-Evidence indicates that the
Express Company made request upon the railroad over which this employee
traveled for refund of the fare he was required to pay, which request was
declined, and as it is shown that this employee was transferred for personal
reasons and that there was no reason so far as the carrier was concerned
why he could not have waited until receipt of the transportation, claim
of the employees is denied. ARE-Clks. Decision No. 909.
REHEARING ON DECISIONS. Petition for.
Petition of Abilene & Southern Railway for rehearing on Decision 2. De-
nied. Decision 15.
Petition of Order of Railroad Telegraphers for rehearing on Decision 2.
Denied. Decision 17.
Petition of St. Louis Southwestern Ry. for rehearing on Decision 120.
Denied. Decision 149.
Petition of the carrier requesting the Board to vacate and set aside its
Decision No. 218. (See "Representation Rights-Shop Crafts.") The Board
declined the request of the carrier for a hearing on the matters brought out
in its petition except in connection with the following, concerning which a
hearing was offered: (1) as to what employees not in the actual service
of the carrier, such as those laid off, furloughed or absent upon leave, shall
be permitted to vote in the election of representatives to confer with the
carrier; (2) as to how the representative capacity of the spokesmen of
unorganized employees shall be ascertained; and (3) as to the "adoption
or ratification of its shop craft rules by the representatives of said crafts
202
fairly selected by a majority of the employees of that class." Order of the
Board in re: Docket 404 (Decision 218. PRR-SC.
Application of the Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and Paper Hangers
of America for rehearing on Decision No. 227. Decision-Application denied.
Broof PD&PHofA. Decision No. 414.
Motion for rehearing in connection with Decision No 552 issued by the
Labor Board in regard to dismissal of certain section foreman. Decision-
Motion for rehearing is denied. SAU&G-Mof W. Decision No. 831.
Application of carrier for rehearing of Decision No. 825. Decision-The
Labor Board, after due consideration of the motion of the carrier named for
a rehearing of the dispute referred to, overruled said motion and declines to
reopen the case. CI&W-Telgrs. Decision No. 885.
Request for rehearing in connection with discharge of certain car
inspector, which case was decided by the Board in its Decision No. 403. De-
cision-Request for rehearing is denied. GCL. Decision No. 925.
Request of Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Hand-
lers, Express and Station Employees for rehearing on Decision No. 821,
in which it was decided that rules and regulations, and conditions of em-
ployment in effect on the American Railway Express Company were not bind-
ing upon the Southern Express Company when that company commenced
operation on the lines of the carrier over which the American Railway Ex-
press Company operated prior to May 1, 1921. Decision-The Board, after
due consideration of the motion of the employees named, for rehearing of the
dispute referred to overruled said motion and declined to reopen said case.
Clks. Decision No. 948.
Application of the Southeastern Express Company for rehearing on De-
cision No. 822, in which it was decided that the Southeastern Express Com-
pany in reducing wages without seeking conference with the representatives
of the employees interested, had acted in conflict with Section 301 of the
Transportation Act, 1920, and in conflict with Order No. 1 of the Labor
Board, and that wages previously in effect should be restored and the em-
ployees affected paid the difference between the rates they have received
since August 1, 1921, and the rates they would have received had the wages
in force during the period prior to that date remained in effect. Decision-
The Board, after due consideration of the motion of the carrier named for
rehearing of the dispute referred to overruled said motion and declined
to reopen said case. SEECO. Decision No. 949.
REINSTATEMENTS-REQUESTS FOR.
(For reinstatement cases involving Discipline-see "Discipline.")
1. Clerical Employees.
2. M. of W. Employees.
3. Shop Crafts.
4. Dispatchers.
5. Express Employees.
1. Clerical Employees.
De-
StLS-Decision
Request for reinstatement of clerical employees-no facts_given.
cision-Request denied. CofGa-Clks. Decision No. 196.
No. 532. PM-Decision Nos. 555, 557. CM&StP-Decision No. 612.
AT&SF-Decision No. 763. IC-Decision No. 888.
Request for reinstatement of employee to his former position as pier fore-
man. No facts given. Decision-Request denied. B&M-Clerks.
B&M-Clerks. Decision
No. 344.
Request that certain employee be restored to position of seal clerk and paid
the difference in salary between that position and position he has held in the
service since December 20, 1920. No facts given. Case withdrawn by em-
ployees and file closed. PM-Clerks. Decision No. 388.
Claim for reinstatement of certain employees released from service ac-
count reduction in force. Claim withdrawn by employees and file closed.
203
NYC-Clks. Decision No. 393. ErieRR-Clks. Decision No. 472. MC-
Clks. Decision No. 658.
Request for reinstatement of certain clerical employees-no facts given.
Case withdrawn by employees and file closed. IC-Clks. Decision No. 457.
IndHB. Decision No. 608. SP. Decisions Nos. 695, 739, 756, 942, 943.
C&EI. Decision No. 758. MK&T. Decision No. 766. UTCoof Dallas. De-
cision No. 791. KCM&O. Decision No. 818. IC. Decision No. 865.
D&H. Decision No. 931.
Request that certain employees, formerly employed as ticket sorters be
returned to service as comptometer operators and paid for time lost since date
they were removed from their positions and comptometer operators sub-
stituted. Decision-At hearing conducted by Board it developed that the
positions for which the employees aspire have been abolished. Therefore,
there is nothing for the Board to decide in this case and the file has been
closed. NYNH&H-Clerks. Decision No. 531.
Request for reinstatement of certain employee in general yardmaster's office
at certain point. Decision-Board decides that request for reinstatement to
position in general yardmaster's office with pay for time held out of service
is denied. However, if employee desires to return to the service she shall be
permitted to exercise her seniority rights to any position to which her seniority,
fitness and ability justifies a trial in accordance with rules of Clerks' National
Agreement. If she returns to the service she shall retain her seniority rights
unimpaired, from date she entered service of the carrier. CM&StP-Clerks.
Decision No. 573.
Requests for reinstatement with pay for time lost of certain foreman.
Decision-Dispute is remanded to the employees and carrier for further
conference and effort to reach a settlement in accordance with understanding
had after hearing conducted by the Board. Case is therefore removed from
docket and file closed. D&RG-Clks. Decision No. 729.
2. Maintenance of Way Employees.
Request for reinstatement of foreman and pay for time lost of said fore-
man and other members of his gang for period out of service from April 13
to May 25, 1920, when they quit the service of their own accord, refusing to
perform certain work which had been contracted out and which work the
contractor was unable to perform with his own men account of a strike of
city carpenters. The contract when made stipulated that in event the strike
had not terminated in time for said contractor to perform the work, that the
carrier would furnish the necessary labor and the contractor would furnish
necessary material and supervision. When the railroad employees were de-
tailed to perform the work and learned that they were filling the place of
men out on strike and that work was to be supervised by contractor, they re-
fused to perform the work under such conditions, the foreman agreeing with
his men and quitting the service with them. After investigation, the men
were reinstated, and claim is now made for pay for time lost and for re-
instatement of the foreman. Decision-Board decides upon evidence submitted
that men in question, including foreman, quit the service of their own accord,
and therefore denies payment for time lost. It takes cognizance of statement
embodied in agreed statement of facts that the foreman has not on his own
part requested reinstatement or reemployment, or signified to any official of
carrier that anyone else was authorized to do so in his behalf, and decides,
therefore, that carrier is justified in position taken. CCC&StL-MofW.
Decision No. 257.
Request for reinstatement of B. & B. foreman relieved from that position
account unsatisfactory service. Decision-Evidence submitted does not indi-
cate that this foreman was discharged, but rather relieved from position of
B. & B. foreman and extended opportunity to report for duty in another
capacity, which he failed to accept. Board decides carrier was justified in
action taken and denies reinstatement to position of B. & B. foreman. SP—
MofW. Decision No. 261.
Request that employee formerly employed as section foreman be returned
to said position and paid for all time lost. Decision-In written submission
204
filed by carrier and employees and at oral hearing nothing developed to indi-
cate justification of claim made by representatives of the employee. Evidence
shows-and it is not contradicted by the employees that employee in question
is now in service of carrier as B. & B. carpenter, receiving a higher rate of
compensation than that accruing to him in former position as section foreman,
and that employee seems satisfied in his present position. Claim is therefore
denied. StL&H-MofW. Decision No. 342.
Request for reinstatement and pay for time lost of certain machinist who
it is claimed was granted verbal leave of absence by the foreman to conduct
a campaign in connection with his candidacy for Congress, but who upon being
defeated in the election and returning to service was denied employment on
basis that he did not secure a proper leave of absence and was therefore
considered as having voluntarily left the service. Decision-Board decides
that this machinist shall be restored to his former position with seniority rights.
unimpaired and paid for all time lost, deducting any amount that he may
have earned while engaged in other employment during the period out of
the service. GrNor-ShopCrafts. Decision No. 586.
Request for reinstatement of certain maintenance of way employee-no
facts given. Case withdrawn by employees and file closed. T&P-MofW.
Decision No. 715.
3. Shop Crafts.
Request for reinstatement of certain employee-no facts stated. Decision-
Board understands that subsequent to filing this dispute an agreement has been
negotiated and consummated and that further negotiations will be conducted
with a view to disposing of this dispute. In view of this fact the case is con-
sidered closed without prejudice to the right of either party in making further
submission in connection therewith if it so desires. PullmanCo-ShopCrafts.
Decision No. 442.
De-
Request for reinstatement of certain boilermakers and boilermaker help-
ers-no facts given. Decision-Request denied. FtS&W-ShopCrafts.
cision No. 584.
Question as to whether certain employee formerly employed as car inspec-
tor and later demoted to car repairer shall be reinstated to the position of
inspector, or whether this employee, who subsequent to his demotion to car
repairer was laid off account reduction in force, shall be reinstated to position
of car repairer and paid for time lost. Decision-Claim for reinstatement as
car inspector is denied. However, seniority accumulated by this employee as
car inspector should have been considered when reducing the force, and as
in accordance with seniority rules he was not the youngest man in the service
at the time of the reduction, he should be reinstated to position of car repairer
with seniority rights unimpaired and paid for time lost as car repairer since
date of his removal from the service, less any amount he may have earned
in other employment during such period. AnnArbor-AFofRRW. Decision
No. 587.
Question as to seniority standing as a pattern maker of a certain employee
and request for his reinstatement with pay for time lost. This employee was
employed on May 4, 1902, as carpenter and worked in that capacity until June
7, 1905, when he was assigned and classified as pattern maker; he worked in
this capacity (except from October 1, 1908, to May 1, 1909, when he was
foreman of cabinet shop) until August 13, 1913, on which date he was dis-
charged because of altercation with a foreman. He was held out of service
two weeks and re-entered the service August 28, 1913, without change of
assignment or classification and continued in that capacity until March 22,
1921, on which date he was laid off account reduction in force. Employees
contend that this employee was reinstated and that his seniority as pattern
maker dates from June, 1905, while carrier takes the position that the dis-
charge on August 13, 1913, constitutes a break in the continuity of his seniority
and that his seniority only dates from August 28, 1913. Decision-Claim of
employees sustained. Employee in question shall be reinstated with seniority
rights unimpaired and paid for time lost, deducting any amount that he may
have earned in other employment since date he was taken out of service.
L&N ShopCrafts. Decision No. 792.
205
Request of machinist for reinstatement to position he held prior to being
injured, and claim for pay for time lost since date he applied for rein-
statement. Decision-This claim was presented by the employees in ex-
parte form. Upon receipt of the submission, a copy was forwarded to the
carrier and an opportunity extended to them to furnish their position in
connection with the claim that had been filed by the employees, but to date
(April 26, 1922) the carrier has made no reply. In accordance with the em-
ployees' request, an oral hearing was conducted at which only the representa-
tives of the employees were present, and who submitted testimony in be-
half of the employee's claim. The evidence shows that the employee in ques-
tion received a severe injury while in the carrier's service, which incapaci-
tated him for a considerable time; that he was compensated a certain amount
by the claim department, and was assured that he would be restored to his old
position, but upon making application for it, he was denied reemployment,
while men younger in the service were retained. The Board, therefore.
decided that this employee shall be restored to his former position with
seniority rights unimpaired and pay for all time lost since the date he ap-
plied for reemployment to the date he is restored to the service, less any amount
he may have earned in other employment during this period. DM&N-
ShpCrf. Decision No. 927.
4. Dispatchers.
Request for reinstatement to position of assistant chief dispatcher-no facts
given. Decision-Request denied. Wabash-ATDA. Decision No. 271.
Request for reinstatement of train dispatcher with full seniority rights
and pay for all time lost since date on which his services as train dispatcher
terminated. Employee in question was removed from position of train dis-
patcher account issuance of alleged improper train order, and permitted to
exercise his seniority rights in telegraph and station service. He then made
request for leave of absence, which was granted, and at expiration of such
leave failed to return or report for duty, and was therefore considered out of
the service. Decision-Request denied. CM&StP-ATDA. Decision No. 274.
Request for reinstatement of train dispatcher. Employee in question was
taken out of service and requested and was granted a leave of absence for a
certain period. Employee reported to superintendent by letter two days before
expiration of his leave, but did not report in person. Several months later
he was notified that in view of having overstayed his leave of absence he was
considered out of the service. Decision-Basing decision on evidence before
it, Board decides that request for reinstatement of this employee to position
of train dispatcher is denied. However, as he reported by letter to the
superintendent before expiration of his leave for instructions as to when to
report for assignment, and instructions were not forthcoming, if he still
desires to return to the telegraph service he shall be permitted to do so and
be entitled to the same consideration as was the intent of the carrier to extend
him had he personally reported to the superintendent on expiration of his
leave of absence. CM&StP-ATDA. Decision No. 625.
Request for reinstatement of certain train dispatcher. No facts given.
Decision-Request denied. MP-ATDA. Decision No. 919,
5. Express Employees.
Request for reinstatement of certain express employees-no facts given.
Case withdrawn by employees and file closed. ARE-Clks. Decisions Nos.
628 and 658.
Request for reinstatement of certain express employees-no facts given.
Decision-Request denied. ARE-Clks. Decisions Nos. 667, 672, 736, 784, 880.
Request for reinstatement of certain transferman who was relieved from
service on account of alleged inability to satisfactorily perform the duties
assigned to him. Decision-Board decides that employee in question did not
have sufficient fitness and ability to handle the position to which he was
assigned when it became necessary to rearrange the work in connection with
reduction in force, and request of employees for reinstatement is therefore
denied, However, when the forces in the seniority district in which this
206
employee was employed are increased he shall be permitted to return to any
position in the service to which his seniority, fitness and ability may entitle
him. ARE-Clks. Decision No. 817.
Request for reinstatement of certain clerical employee. No facts given.
Decision-Request denied. ARE-Clks. Decision No. 906.
RELEASED BEFORE COMPLETION OF ASSIGNED HOURS-
Pay When.
Question as to proper application of Rule 50 of the Clerks' National
Agreement in the case of three hourly-rated employees who were released
before completion of their 8-hour assignment and in the case of two hourly-
rated employees who reported for work at regular starting time, not having
been notified otherwise, and were sent home without working. Employees
contend that under rule referred to the men who report for work at their
regular starting time are entitled to three hours' pay therefor, and that the
men who were released before completion of their assignment are entitled to
not less than 8 hours' pay therefor. Carrier declined the claim on the ground
that these are the classes of employees referred to in the last sentence of
Rule 50, which reads: "This guarantee will not be construed to apply to those
who are employed to take care of fluctuating work that can be handled by
regular forces." Decision-Position of employees is sustained. PM-Clerks.
Decision No. 566.
RELIEF CLERKS. See "Extra or Relief Employees-Pay for."
RELIEF POINTS. See "Reporting and Relief Points."
RELIEF AT TERMINALS.
Claim for continuous time under specific schedule rule while tied up at
point where eating and sleeping accommodations could not be secured. De-
nied account terminal for crew and where such accommodations ordinarily
can be secured. D&SL-EFCT. Decision No. 29.
REMOVAL FROM SERVICE. Request for.
Request that colored brakeman, who was given thirty days' suspension for
failure to flag passenger train, be taken out of service. Board without juris-
diction, matter having occurred before passage of Transportation Act. N&W
-Tr. Decision No. 77.
Request that colored yard brakeman be dismissed from the service, alleging
insubordination account refusing to work with a particular engineer; brake-
man claiming said engineer had threatened to do him bodily harm. Matter
was investigated by road and brakeman permitted to return to work after
loss of time pending investigation. Decision-Request declined. N&W-Tr.
Decision No. 80.
RENTAL CHARGES.
Where for some years past road had allowed certain section houses built
and owned by company to be occupied by section foremen in its employ free
of charge, question as to right of road to make a monthly rental charge of
$5.00 for these section houses and make a deduction of said amount from
wages of section foremen for use and occupation of such quarters. Road
sustained. MK&T-MofW. Decision No. 94.
Question as to payment of water license for water furnished employees
residing in company-owned houses. Decision-Board denies contention of em-
ployees, provided there is no change made by carrier in regard to present ar-
rangement as to rental. MP-MofW. Decision No. 325.
REPORTING AND RELIEF POINTS.
Request for rule providing that engineers and firemen will report for and
be relieved at passenger station at certain points. Parties at interest agreed
upon settlement and withdrew the case from the Board. OWRR&N-E&F.
Decision No. 313.
207
REPORTING FOR SERVICE AND NOT USED-PAY WHEN.
Question as to proper application of Rule 50 of the Clerks' National Agree-
ment in the case of three hourly-rated employees who were released before
completion of their 8-hour assignment and in the case of two hourly-rated em-
ployees who reported for work at regular starting time, not having been
notified otherwise, and were sent home without working. Employees contend
that under rule referred to the men who reported for work at their regular
starting time are entitled to three hours pay therefor; and that the men
who were released before completion of their assignment are entitled to not
less than 8 hours pay therefor. Carrier declined the claim on the ground
that these are the classes of employees referred to in the last sentence of
Rule 50 which reads "this guarantee will not be construed to apply to those
who are employed to take care of fluctuating work that can be handled by
regular forces. Decision-Position of employees is sustained. PM-Clerks.
Decision No. 566.
Claim of clerk for pay for time worked on certain day in accordance with
Rule 50 (reporting for duty and not used) of the Clerks' National Agree-
ment-no facts given. Case withdrawn by parties at interest and file closed.
PM-Clks. Decision No. 944.
REPORTS. Making of.
Request for additional compensation under rule providing for payment of
time after engine is placed on designated track at terminals to allow for
inspection of engine and making of reports. Decision-Board decides no
change should be made at this time. NYC-EF. Decision No. 11.
REPRESENTATION RIGHTS.
1. Train & Engine Service Employees.
2. Clerical Employees.
3. Shop Employees.
4. M. of W. Employees.
5. Telegraph Employees.
6. Dispatchers.
7. Supervisors of Mechanics.
8. General.
1. Train and Engine Service Employees.
Request for new rule providing that vacancies occurring in the ranks of
yardmen will be filled with promotable men; also that the organization repre-
sented in the agreement be insured not less than 85 per cent of the men
employed in the yard, and be given preference in employment. Denied-Board
decides present rule or practice is just and reasonable. N&W-Trainmen.
Decision No. 66.
Request for reinstatement with pay for time lost of switchman and fireman
dismissed from service because as alleged by organizations they responded
to request of chief executives of their organization for certain information
as to the status of the wage questions on their line, which information had
been requested of the executives by the Labor Board because of the receipt.
of advice by such Board from the officers of the company which indicated
that no dispute existed between the management and employees, whereas
the employees were at the time contending for payment of time and one-
half for overtime as in effect on other railroads in the territory, management
states employees in question were dismissed for having positively declined
to carry out instructions of superintendent. Decision-This appears to be a
case of managing officers of the carrier declining to meet with their employees
through representatives of organizations. The Transportation Act, 1920,
specifically provides for handling of disputes through organizations composed
of employees and Board has explicitly dealt with this subject in Decision No.
224 to which attention is hereby directed. It is self-evident that no orderly
adjudication of differences between employees and carrier can be had if car-
208
rier declines to meet representatives of an "organization of employees or sub-
ordinate officials whose members are directly interested in the dispute," but
on the contrary dismisses from service employees who seek such recognition.
After considering all the facts, the Board decides that the employees in ques-
tion shall be reinstated to their former positions and paid for time lost since.
date of dismissal. InterstateRR-T&F. Decision No. 528.
Proceeding under Section 313 of the Transportation Act, 1920, to ascertain
and determine whether or not the carrier in question has violated Decision No.
528 of the Labor Board. Decision No. 528 involved the dismissal of a certain
switchman and fireman, because as alleged by organizations they responded
to request of chief executives of their organizations for certain information
as to the status of the wage question on their line, which information had
been requested of the executives by the Labor Board because of the receipt
of advice by said Board from the officers of the company which indicated
that no dispute existed between the management and employees, whereas the
employees were, at the time, contending for payment of time and one-half for
overtime as in effect of other railroads in the territory, management states
employees in question were dismissed for having positively declined to carry
out instructions of superintendent. Road declined to become a party to the
case. Decision No. 528 of the Board ordered the reinstatement of the em-
ployees in question. Decision-"In this proceeding the carrier again refused
to appear before the Board and in letter from its attorney made the state-
ment: 'I beg to state that the Interstate Railroad Company is of opinion that
the Labor Board has only advisory powers in matters of this kind.' The
question thus presented, in this case, is a most important one. Here is a car-
rier which arbitrarily and unfairly denies to its employees the simple right to
perform their duties as members of their organizations, which is equivalent to
a denial of their right to become members of such organizations. This action
is taken in the teeth of the Transportation Act passed by the Congress of the
United States which expressly recognizes the right of employees to organize
and to function as organizations. The fact that this carrier is a small road
down in the Virginia mountains makes its conduct none the less reprehensible.
It connects with other carriers and the irritating effect of its disregard for
the rights of its men and for the authority of the law extends to employees on
other roads, and the Board, therefore, decides that this company and its re-
sponsible officials have violated Decision No. 528 of the Board as herein indi-
cated." IRR-T&F. Decision No. 886.
2. Clerical Employees.
Question as to right of employees in general offices now covered by exist-
ing agreements of the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight
Handlers, Express and Station Employees to negotiate their own agreement
with the carrier independently of that negotiated by said organization under
circumstances where said organization represents a majority of all the clerks
and station employees in the service of the carrier, but not a majority of the
general office force. Decision-The employees in general offices now covered
by existing agreements of the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks
do not constitute, within the meaning of Principle 15 of Decision 119, a craft
or class separate and different from other employees in clerical and station
service. They should, therefore, be included within the agreement to be made
between the carrier and the organization representing the majority of the
employees in clerical and station service-this decision not to operate to pre-
vent the exclusion of the personal office force and confidential positions in the
general offices from the application of the agreement. Int. 5 to Decision
No. 119.
Question whether agreement covering rules and working conditions should
be made directly with the employees or with an organization representing the
employees; carrier conceding that the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship
Clerks represent a majority of that class of its employees, but declining to
permit the caption of the proposed agreement to show that the employees
covered were represented by said brotherhood. Decision-It is clear under
Decision 119 that said organization has right to make agreement for said
209
•
entire class of employees, both members and non-members of said organiza-
tion, and it is proper that caption be so drawn as to show for whom and by
whom the agreement is made. (See decision for caption to be used.) MK&T
-MK&Tof Texas-WF&NW-Clerks. Decision No. 173.
Dispute as to whether procedure adopted by the carrier to ascertain who
should represent the employees in the clerical and station service in the nego-
tiations on rules was legal and binding on the employees; carrier's ballot being
rejected by the organization of the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship
Clerks on the grounds (1) that said plan denied the employees the right to
vote for an organization and permitted voting for individuals only; (2) that
it required that the individuals voted for be the employees of the carrier;
(3) that carrier had wrongfully and illegally divided the employees of said
class for the purposes of the election into arbitrary subdivisions; and (4) that
the carrier had formulated and announced its plan without consulting the
employees. Decision—(1) Carrier was within its rights in denying that the
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks represented a majority of that
class of employees and requiring evidence of the alleged fact; (2) an election
to be freely participated in by all employees of that class, union and non-
union, to select representatives was proper and legal; (3) carrier was wrong
in refusing to allow the name of any organization to go on the ballot; (4)
organization was wrong in its suggestion that ballot contain only names of
organizations to the exclusion of individuals; (5) insistence of carrier that
no name should go on ballot except that of an employee of the carrier is not
justified by statute; (6) carrier had no legal right to adopt a regional division
for purpose of requiring the employees to elect regional representatives, neither
did it have the right to segregate the clerks in the general offices or otherwise
subdivide the clerks; (7) carrier was correct in its contention that the em-
ployees embraced in the membership of the Brotherhood of Railway and
Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees consti-
tute more than one distinct class of employees within the meaning of the
Transportation Act, for example, laborers employed in and around stations,
storehouses and warehouses have no right to participate in the election of
representatives to negotiate rules for clerks, and vice versa, the clerks have
no right to participate in the election to negotiate rules for laborers-the fact
that these different and distinct classes of employees belong to the same organ-
ization does not affect the question under consideration-and for purpose of
proposed ballot employees should be divided into three classes as set out in
the decision; (8) election held by carrier, therefore, was illegal and void, and
another election shall be held to determine the choice of a majority of each
of these three classes of employees set out, as to their representatives in the
negotiations of rules and working conditions, under the methods and condi-
tions prescribed in the decision. Penna-Clks. Decision No. 220.
Question as to whether the general office clerks shall be included in the
same agreement on rules and working conditions as the clerks outside the
general offices, or whether the general office clerks shall be permitted to
negotiate a separate agreement. Decision-Board reaffirms its former de-
cisions on the point involved, and decides that the general office clerks of this
carrier shall be embraced in the same agreement on rules with the other
clerks of the carrier; the agreement to comprise the groups of employees held
by the Board in its Decision No. 220 to constitute the class of employees to be
covered by the clerks' agreement. ACL-Clks. Decision No. 225. SP-Clks.
Decision No. 476. IC-CM&G-Y&MV-Clks. Decision No. 477.
Question as to right of Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks,
Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees to negotiate rules and
working conditions for clerical employees. Decision-Basing decision on evi-
dence before it the Board decides that request of the Brotherhood of Railway
and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, etc., is denied. Nothing in this de-
cision shall be understood to infringe, however, upon the right of employees,
not members of the organization representing a majority, to present a griev-
ance either in person or by representative of their choice. NC&StL-Clerks.
Decision No. 502.
Question as to whether the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks,
210
Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees or the Florida East Coast
Railway Clerks' Association shall have the right to negotiate an agreement
covering rules and working conditions for the government of employees in
clerical and station service. Decision-Board decides that the Florida East
Coast Railway Clerks' Association represented a majority of the clerical em-
ployees in the service of the carrier named and had the right to negotiate an
agreement with the carrier in May, 1921, which shall apply to all classes of
clerical employees included within the scope of said agreement. This agree-
ment shall not infringe upon the rights of employees not members of the
organization representing the majority to present grievances either in person or
by representatives of their own choice. FEC-Clerks. Decision No. 503.
Question as to whether carrier shall negotiate an agreement covering rules
for the government of working conditions of clerical employees with the
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees or with the Michigan Central Railroad Clerks' Asso-
ciation. Decision-Board decides that the duly authorized representatives of
the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employees, the Michigan Central Railroad Clerks' Association,
and the Michigan Central Railroad Company shall hold a conference for the
purpose of arranging details of procedure to be followed and take a vote of
employees involved as provided in the Labor Board's Decision No. 218 and
Addendum No. 1 thereto and Decision No. 220. When vote has been taken
and legally counted majority of votes cast will govern. MichiganCen-
Clerks. Decision No. 583.
Question as to whether the positions enumerated shall be considered as com-
ing within the scope of Group 1 of Decision No. 220, in connection with the
voting of clerical employees in the service of the carrier named in accordance
with Decision No. 583. Decision No. 220 divides the employees in clerical and
station service into three groups for purpose of taking a ballot, and repre-
sentatives of the respective parties to this dispute are unable to agree as to the
allocation of certain classes of employees in the said groups. Decision-The
Board after due consideration of all evidence presented, decided to and did
classify, for the purpose of voting for clerical representation in accordance
with Decision 583, the positions in dispute in accordance with the grouping of
employees set up in Decision 220. MC-Clks. Decision No. 829.
3. Shop Employees.
Where certain employees coming under the provisions of National Shop
Agreement are members of the American Federation of Railroad Workers
and desire that organization to handle their grievance matters, question as to
whether under Rule 35 of the Shop Agreement that organization, not being
a party to said agreement, has the right to handle matters coming under the
shop agreement, and its committee be recognized as "the duly authorized local
committee" referred to in Rule 35 of said agreement. Employees sustained.
AFofRRW-B&M. Decision No. 70.
Question as to right of Federated Shop Crafts to represent the six shop
crafts jointly in negotiating an agreement as to rules and working conditions
under directions of Decision 119. Decision-Joint agreement may be made,
providing said system federation represents a majority of each craft or class.
T&P-SC. Decision No. 153. MK&T-SC. Decision No. 205.
Question as to right of System Federation to negotiate one agreement
under Decision 119 to cover all members of their crafts regardless of the
department in which the men are employed. Decision-Agreement shall cover
and apply to all employees in said class or crafts, if Federation so elects;
provided that decision shall not operate to prevent negotiation of such special
rules for employees represented in other departments as are necessary for the
economical operation of such departments and are peculiarly applicable to
nature of work and conditions surrounding it in other departments as distin-
guished from the more highly specialized work of the maintenance of equip-
ment department. C&EI-SC; Decision No. 154. CB&Q-SC; Decision No.
155. MK&T-SC; Decision No. 205.
Question as to whether dispute on proposed reduction in wages, application
211
for decision having been filed with Board by carrier, is properly before the
Board, representatives of employees contending that conferences as contem-
plated in Sec. 301 of Transportation Act had not been held. Decision-Letter
and spirit of Sec. 301 of Transportation Act have not been complied with by
the carrier, and will not have been complied with until carrier shall have met
in conference or endeavored to meet in conference the duly designated repre-
sentatives of the employees directly interested in the dispute, and in case of
disagreement shall have properly certified the dispute to the Board. The
majority of such employees shall have the right to select their said representa-
tives as provided in Principle 15, Decision 119. Pullman Co-SC. Decision
No. 174.
Dispute as to method of choosing representatives of employees to negotiate
with carrier concerning rules covering working conditions. In conference
with representatives of system federation of shop craft employees carrier
declined to negotiate with such representatives on the ground that it had
not satisfactory proof that they actually represented a majority of the em-
ployees in question. In order to procure evidence as to whom the majority
of its shop craft employees desired to have represent them, the carrier
prepared and distributed to its shop employees a ballot on which they were
to designate their representatives. This ballot provided only for voting for
individuals. The employees requested the carrier to amend its ballot so as
to provide an opportunity for the shop employees to vote for an organiza-
tion if they so desired; this proposal was declined by the carrier. The
shop craft organization objected to carrier's ballot on the following grounds:
(1) that the system federation did represent a majority of the employees
in the shop crafts, which the carrier did not deny and that, therefore, the
proposal to take a ballot involved unnecessary delay; (2) that the proposed
ballot was not in accordance with the law in that it not only failed to
permit the employees to vote for an organization, but required them to
designate individuals; (3) because it provided that the individuals so desig-
nated must be employees of the carrier; and (4) because it provided that
the employees be represented regionally rather than for the system as a
whole. As these objections were not entertained by the carrier, officers of
the local organization issued a ballot of their own preparation to shop
employees, which ballot gave opportunity to vote for the system federation
or any other organization which the employees might prefer, but did not
present opportunity to vote for any individual. These separate ballots resulted
in separate elections. The carrier recognized the result of the election
which it conducted, and negotiated rules with the representatives chosen
on its ballot and refused to recognize the representatives chosen as the
result of the employees' ballot. Decision-The Board decided that the
carrier "had no legal authority to divide its system into regions and require
the employees to elect regional representatives," as the Transportation Act
"contemplates that the employees of the class directly interested on an entire
system shall select representatives." The Board also decides that the "car-
rier was not justified in refusing the request of the employees to place on
the ballot the name of the organization," and that the shop crafts were "not
authorized by the law and ignored the rights of the non-union men," in
distributing a ballot of their own preparation with no opportunity provided
thereon for voting for individuals. Accordingly, "under the authority of
the Transportation Act, . . . the Labor Board hereby declares that both
of said elections . . were illegal and that rules negotiated by the alleged
representatives selected by either ballot will be void and of no effect, and
orders that a new election be held." The Board thereupon lays down
detailed instructions as to the form of the ballot and as to the distribution,
collection and counting of the ballots in connection with the reelection which
it ordered. PRR-SC. Decision No. 218.
Petition of the carrier _requesting the Board to vacate and set aside its
Decision No. 218. The Board declined the request of the carrier for a
hearing on the matters brought out in its petition except in connection with
the following, concerning which a hearing was offered: (1) as to what
employees not in the actual service of the carrier, such as those laid off,
212
furloughed or absent upon leave, shall be permitted to vote in the election
of representatives to confer with the carrier; (2) as to how the repre-
sentative capacity of the spokesmen of unorganized employees shall be ascer-
tained; and (3) as to the "adoption or ratification of its shop craft rules
by the representatives of said crafts fairly selected by a majority of the
employees of that class." Order of the Board in re: Docket 404 (Decision
218). PRR-SC.
Modification of Decision 218 to extent that method of election of repre-
sentatives of employees shall be by secret ballot. Add. 1 to Decision 218.
Question as to whether the carrier shall negotiate rules and working con-
ditions affecting shop employees with the officers of the system federation of
shop crafts-road contending that Decision 119 contemplated that conference
relative to agreements should be had between the management and its direct
employees, and declined to negotiate with the System Federation on the ground
that none of its officers were employees of the carrier. Decision-The carrier
shall enter into negotiations regarding rules and working conditions with the
officers of System Federation No. 90, and pending the conclusion of such
negotiations no change shall be made in the rules and working conditions
in force and effect on July 1, 1921, except by agreement between the carrier
and the System Federation. LI-SC. Decision No. 219.
The painters employed on the road in question concluded an agreement
with the management through the Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators
and Paperhangers of America, which organization they desired to represent
them in negotiations with the management; on the other hand, the Brother-
hood of Railway Carmen of America, through its Texas and Pacific organi-
zation, claims the right to negotiate an agreement for these painters with
the management. Decision-Board decides that the system organization
of the Brotherhood of Railway Carmen of America is entitled to negotiate
an agreement on rules and working conditions that will include the rules
for the painters of said carrier, and orders that the parties proceed to nego-
tiate such agreement. In support of its position the Board cites the fol-
lowing considerations: (1) that the assertion of the Brotherhood of Railway
Carmen that these painters properly belong to the class of mechanical
employees comprising the carmen's organization is supported "by the almost
unanimous practice on all the railroads of the United States. With prac-
tically unbroken uniformity the practice has been and is now, to include
the painters in the agreement with the carmen"; (2) it is not contemplated
by the Transportation Act nor recognized by the carriers that the work of
all employees treated as comprising a class or craft shall be absolutely
identical-it is sufficient if the general characteristics of the work and the
conditions surrounding it are similar; (3) that the painters in question
recognized the foregoing principle by the fact that they associated them-
selves with an organization of paperhangers; (4) if the right of these
painters to be represented by an outside organization is sustained, it might
lead to the railroads facing the necessity of making multitudinous agree-
ments with arbitrary subdivisions of their employees, such subdivisions
possibly being made simply to satisfy the whim or caprice of small groups
of employees; (5) while the Transportation Act gives employees the right
to enter into an agreement on rules and working conditions, such right is not
denied by a reasonable regulation of its exercise; (6) the fact that no
trouble or inconvenience has resulted to the road in question in dealing
with the painters' organization, instead of with the carmen, does not indicate
what would likely happen to carriers following a similar course and located
in great centers of population; and (7) the assumption that the carmen
represent the majority of the entire class of employees. (Note-This decision
dissented from by several members of Board on one or more of the following
grounds (1) these "painters and apprentices" have since 1901 up to present
time negotiated rules and working conditions through a committee of their own
selection, and did at the outset of the present negotiations serve notice on
the carrier protesting the effort of the Federated Shop Crafts to represent them
by submerging them in the carmen's organization and demanded a con-
tinuance of the long unchallenged right to select their own representatives; and
'
213
the carrier, recognizing such rights, did in June, 1921, renew with agreed
modification the schedule which had been running for 20 years past—(2) the
decision violates Principles 5 and 15 of Decision No. 119—(3) While freely
conceded that men ruled against in Board's decision are few in number, at the
same time the principle assailed by the decision is most vital, and decision is
most dangerous step toward abridging the right of craft or class to self-
determination as to representation and by direct influence forcing the craft or
class referred to to affiliate with an organization against its expressed will-
(4) decision is violative of the legal, moral and equitable rights of the carrier
and particular employees interested-the employees involved constitute
separate and distinct class whose interests should not, against their wishes, be
submerged with other classes, and that under the Board's decisions, under the
statute, and under provisions of the Constitution of U. S., they have an abso-
lute right to separate negotiations and to select their own representatives—
(5) this decision and Int. 5 to Decision No. 119 will establish an uneconomical
and unwise principle which will interfere with the liberty and discretion of
railroad managements.) T&PRR-ShCfts. Decision No. 227.
a
Question as to whether system federation representing shop crafts has
right to negotiate agreement covering employees performing mechanics' work
in B&B department, and, if so, should rules governing such mechanics be
included in federated shop crafts agreement. Decision-(1) Board was ad-
vised at hearing that question of jurisdiction all rights had been settled
whereby right of representation was conceded to Federated Shop Crafts; (2)
Agreement between Federated Shop Crafts and carrier shall, if federation so
elects, cover and apply to all employees comprised in said class or crafts em-
ployed in the maintenance of way and signal and telegraph departments as
well as maintenance of equipment department, provided this decision shall
not operate to prevent negotiations of such special rules as are necessary for
economical operation of said departments and peculiarly applicable to the nature
of the work and conditions surrounding it in said departments as distinguished
from the more highly specialized work of maintenance of equipment depart-
ment. MStP&SSM-SC. Decision No. 291.
Question as to whether carrier should meet in conference and negotiate or
endeavor to negotiate an agreement as to rules and working conditions with
representative of System Federation of Short Lines affiliated with A. F. of L.
Decision-Board decides that carrier should select its representative or repre-
sentatives to meet, confer and negotiate with such representative of employees
whose evidence shows has been selected by majority of the employees, and that
conference should be held not later than 15 days after date of decision.
IllTerm-ShCfts. Decision No. 259.
Question (a): Has the system federation representing Federated Shop
Crafts the right to negotiate agreement covering employees performing me-
chanics' work and their helpers in the maintenance and repair of water service
equipment, coal-chute machinery, scale work, etc., coming under the jurisdic-
tion of the B. & B. department; and (b), if so, shall the rules governing such
mechanics and helpers be included in the Federated Shop Crafts Agreement?
Decision-(a) Evidence clearly indicates this question involved jurisdiction
between organizations which has since been decided, and no further action is
therefore necessary on the part of the Board. (b) There being no question
as to the system federation representing a majority of each craft or class, the
Board decides that agreement between shop crafts and carrier shall, if said
federation so elects, cover and apply to all employees comprised in said class
or craft employed in the maintenance of way and signal and telegraph depart-
ments as well as maintenance of equipment department; provided this decision
shall not prevent negotiation of such special rules of said maintenance of way
and signal and telegraph departments as are necessary for the economical
operation of such departments and peculiarly applicable to nature of work
and conditions surrounding it as distinguished from more highly specialized
work of maintenance of equipment department. M&StLRR-ShopCrafts.
Decision No. 357.
Application of the Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and Paper Hangers
214
of America for rehearing on Decision No. 227. Decision-Application denied.
BofPDandPHofA. Decision No. 414.
Dispute in regard to right of American Federation of Railroad Workers
to represent certain employees of each of the mechanical crafts. Decision—
Based upon the evidence before it the Board decides that the vote taken on
May 24, 1921, be considered null and void, also that the petition submitted
by representatives of the railway employees' department of the American
Federation of Labor be likewise considered null and void, and that a confer-
ence be arranged between the carrier and the interested organizations for
the purpose of conducting a further ballot in accordance with procedure out-
lined in Decision No. 218. Conference to be arranged and balloting conducted
as soon as possible after the receipt of this decision. T&OC-AFofRRW.
Decision No. 425.
Dispute in regard to protest against Pullman Company's plan of employees'
representation-no facts given. Decision-Board understands that subsequent
to filing this dispute an agreement has been negotiated and consummated and
that further negotiations will be conducted with a view to disposing of this
dispute. In view of this fact the case is considered closed without prejudice
to the right of either party in making further submission in connection there-
with, if it so desires. Pullman Co-ShopCrafts. Decision No. 431.
Question as to whether (1) carrier shall negotiate with the federated
committee representing the employees composed of the various crafts—ma-
chinists, boilermakers, blacksmiths, sheet-metal workers, electrical workers,
and carmen—one agreement to apply to all employees who perform any of
the work included in the classification of the various crafts, irrespective of
the department in which they may be employed; and (2) what is proper
application of Addendum 2 to Decision No. 119 and what effect does Decision
No. 222 have upon this addendum as it applies to employees involved in this
dispute? Decision-(1) Board decides that work of six shop crafts and
conditions under which it is performed are so similar in their main character-
istics as to make it practicable and economical to treat such crafts as consti-
tuting such an organization or class of employees as is contemplated in
Transportation Act, 1920, and Decision No. 119 of the Board, for the purpose
in question, and that said six shop crafts may negotiate and enter into said
agreement jointly through the Federated Shop Crafts, if they so elect, pro-
vided said system federation represents a majority of each craft or class.
This decision not to operate to prevent negotiations of such special rules for
employees represented in other departments as are necessary for economical
operation of such departments and peculiarly applicable to the nature of the
work and conditions surrounding it. Conference shall be arranged as soon as
possible after receipt of this decision and negotiations resumed relative to
rules and working conditions. (2) Provisions of Addendum 2 to Decision
No. 119 shall be applied in accordance with method prescribed therein, to-
gether with Interpretation 1 thereto; such provision shall apply pending agree-
ment negotiations properly conducted and decision of the Board upon questions
that may not be decided in said conference. L&N-ShopCrafts. Decision
No. 504.
Question as to whether (1) system federation representing the Federated
Shop Crafts has the right to negotiate an agreement covering employees
performing mechanics' work and their helpers in the maintenance and repair
of water service equipment coming under the jurisdiction of the maintenance
of way department; and (2), if so, have the Federated Shop Crafts the right
to include rules governing such mechanics in the agreement they are negotiating
covering employees in the maintenance of equipemnt department? Decision
(1) Yes, and (2) Yes. CStPM&O-ShopCrafts.
CStPM&O-ShopCrafts. Decision No. 525.
Question as to whether the American Federation of Railroad Workers has
the right to negotiate an agreement covering car department employees on a
certain division of the carrier involved. Decision-Principle 15 of Decision
No. 119 provides "the majority of any craft or class of employees *
and in view of the fact that this organization does not represent a majority
of the carmen on an entire system, the Board sustains the position of the
carrier in refusing to enter into negotiations regarding rules and working
* * ""
215
conditions to cover the carmen on the one division in question. M&StL-
AFofRRW. Decision No. 618.
Question as to whether shop employees of the Louisiana Southern Railway
Company should be included in agreement covering rules and working condi-
tions for the Gulf Coast Lines. Decision-From evidence submitted, Board
decides that the Louisiana Southern Railway Company is not a part of the
Gulf Coast Lines, and that the carrier is within its rights in insisting that the
shop employees of the Louisiana Southern Railway Company be covered by a
separate agreement. Dissenting opinion filed by Board Member Wharton,
who takes the position: (a) The Louisiana Southern Railroad is operated
by the Gulf Coast Lines, under an operating contract, and the term "Gulf Coast
Lines" has always been understood to apply to certain carriers, including the
Louisiana Southern Railway Company, and the officers of the Gulf Coast
Lines are likewise the officers of the Louisiana Southern Railway Company.
(b) Carrier's reason for desiring the Louisiana Southern omitted from the
Gulf Coast Lines' agreement is apparently that they did not feel that rules
and working conditions applicable to the other lines should be imposed upon
the Louisiana Southern, and that to do so would impose a financial burden
that would be difficult if not impossible to carry. An analysis of the rules
submitted to the Board by the carrier (ex parte) on June 30, 1921, which
carrier requested to be made applicable to the Louisiana Southern, developed
that said rules correspond closely to the so-called national agreement pro-
mulgated by the Railroad Administration, and are, as a whole, much more
favorable to the employees than the rules that have been promulgated by the
Board in its Decision No. 222, and are also more favorable to the employees
than the rules proposed by the carrier for the other lines it operates. GCL-
ShCrfts. Decision No. 833.
Question (a) should certain employees employed in the B. & B. department
be classified and rated as sheet metal workers and (b) has the committee
representing the Federated Shop Crafts the right to represent these employees
in the handling of grievances, etc. Evidence in connection with this case shows
that these employees are classified and rated as bridge carpenters and work
under the supervision of the Maintenance of Way Department, performing
certain pipe and tinners work in connection with water service and other equip-
ment. Employees contend that these employees are performing such work as
installing new steam pipes, water and air lines in shops, yards and buildings,
and making repairs to this class of work, as well as work of tin smith on shop
buildings and in shop yards and should, therefore, be classified and rated in
accordance with rule 126 of the shopmen's agreement. Carrier does not deny
that the employees in question are performing certain pipe and tinners work
but takes the position that their work is in conjunction with and under the
direction of the water service foreman in connection with buildings maintained
by Maintenance of Way Department and that they are not qualified sheet
metal workers, further that the Federated Shop Crafts have no jurisdiction
in this case as the work performed by the employees in question has always
been under the maintenance of way department, and that under Decision 119
an agreement was consummated between the carrier and the maintenance of way
organization giving that organization jurisdiction over employees performing
work similar to that performed by the employees in question. Decision—(a)
Yes, evidence submitted clearly indicates that these employees are performing
work classified as that of sheet metal workers and should therefore, be classified
and rated accordingly, this change in classification and rating to be effective
July 1, 1921. (b) Yes, the right of the Federated Shop Crafts to represent
craftsmen irrespective of department or place employed is clearly established
under Title III of the Transportation Act, 1920. Dissenting opinion filed in this
case by Board Members, Elliott and Baker, who take the position (1) that in
view of the line of demarcation that has been so strongly adhered to in the
past respecting maintenance of way and maintenance of equipment departments
it is not felt that it was ever contemplated that the service of employees who
have been commonly known in the past as B. & B. mechanics would at any time
be considered service coming within the classification of the work of the shop
trades, except perhaps, in some isolated places where exceptional skill is re-
quired; "this line of demarcation having grown up through years of experience
216
•
clearly dictated that the services of employees in the two departments was not
comparable," and if a contrary principle is "carried out to its final conclusion
it would ultimately result in practically all mechanics in the maintenance of way
service being classified and considered as coming within the classification pro-
vided for the shop trades;" (2) the evidence submitted in this case clearly shows
that the employees in question are performing service which has been recog-
nized as that coming within the jurisdiction of the maintenance of way depart-
ment and which has in the past been performed by employees of that depart-
ment, and "experience has clearly demonstrated to the railroads that there is
a marked difference in the qualification necessary for the service such as is
performed by the employees involved in this question and a pipe fitter in the
maintenance of equipment department;" (3) with regard to the particular
question decided, an analysis of the services performed by these employees
clearly indicates that they are performing work which for years has been recog-
nized as that of maintenance of way mechanics, and while some of the operations
performed by them may be operations listed in rule 126 of the shop crafts
agreement, the "complete" assignment of this man is not comparable to the
service enumerated in rule 126. Supporting opinion is also filed by the ma-
jority in which it is stated that (1) the decision arrived at by the majority is
justified by the facts if the work performed is to be a guide rather than a
payroll classification which may or may not mean anything; that any attempt
to establish qualifications and classifications of railroad occupations on the
basis of departmental divisions and sub-divisions is wholly unsound, unwar-
ranted and indefensible from any point of view if employees are to be treated
fairly, and just and reasonable rates of pay and working conditions are to be
established; (2) Attention is directed to Section 3 of the general instructions
contained in Addendum 6 to Decision No. 222, in which reference is made to
Decision No. 205 issued by the Labor Board, and which, it is stated, clearly
shows that the Labor Board in promulgating these decisions recognized that
employees performing work enumerated in Decision No. 222 and its Addenda
properly came within the scope of said rules irrespective of the departments in
which employed; (3) “Considerable emphasis has been placed on the non-
comparability of the service performed by the mechanics in the respective de-
partments. Dissenting opinion is based largely upon general activities in the
respective departments and is not confined to the service performed by the
employees in question. The service performed by the particular employees in-
volved in this dispute is definitely covered by shopmen's agreement and by
Addendum 6 to Decision No. 222 which is an admitted fact." NP-ShpCrf.
Decision Nos. 946 and 947.
4. Maintenance of Way Employees.
Question as to whether foremen in the maintenance of way department
shall be permitted to have an agreement separate from other employees in
that department. Evidence indicates that certain section foremen had ap-
proached the carrier some 18 months previous with a request that said fore-
men be permitted to have a separate agreement covering rules and working
conditions, which request carrier did not grant; that after the issuance of
Decision No. 119 carrier brought the matter to the attention of these foremen
and advised them that under the carrier's interpretation of Decision No. 119
they would have the privilege of drawing up an agreement with the company
provided they could show the proper proportion of the men in their class or
craft. Later a representative of the foremen appeared and claimed to have
signatures of 80 per cent of the foremen. Representatives of the maintenance ·
of way organization also appeared and claimed to have been duly authorized
by a majority of the foremen to represent them in agreement negotiations,
and submitted written signatures in substantiation of their claim. Carrier,
concluding that there had been confusion in the matter, decided to take an
independent secret ballot, which ballot was prepared and approved by both
representatives of the foremen and maintenance of way organization, and the
representative of the carrier together with representatives of both the fore-
men's and maintenance of way foremen's organizations distributed the ballots
and explained to the foremen the proper method to be followed in casting their
217
votes. A count of the ballots was made with representatives of both organi-
zations present and developed that the foremen's organization had received a
majority of the votes cast. Maintenance of way employees' organization now
contend that the carrier assisted the foremen's organization in covering the
road with motor cars and used their influence in other ways to have the
foremen make a separate agreement, and claim that the maintenance of way
organization should be permitted to continue representing this class of em-
ployees as was done during Federal control. They also claim that the petition
of the foremen should be considered as that of unorganized employees and
that in view of their having less than 100 signatures of employees they are
not privileged to bring their case to the Labor Board. Decision-The Board
decides upon the evidence submitted that the carrier has complied with the
provisions of Decision No. 119; that under the circumstances it was justified
in taking the ballot, and that in view of the fact that the ballot was conducted
with the approval and under the direction of the three interested parties it
shall be considered bona fide and the result thereof considered final in so far
as agreement negotiations pursuant to Decision No. 119 is concerned for this
class of employees. BR&P-MofW. Decision No. 412.
Question as to whether crossing watchmen employed by the carrier shall
be polled for purpose of ascertaining whether the crossing watchmen's associa-
tion or the maintenance of way organization shall represent such men in
negotiation working agreement. The representatives of the maintenance of
way organization protest against the method followed by the carrier in de-
termining the wishes of the employees in regard to representation, claiming that
it was not in accordance with the spirit and intent of Decision No. 119 in that
they were not given an opportunity to participate in polling employees who are
represented by that organization under the National Maintenance of Way
Agreement. Decision-In view of fact that these crossing watchmen were,
during Federal control, and for sometime subsequent thereto, governed by the
National Maintenance of Way Agreement, it is opinion of the Labor Board
that said organization should have a voice in the conducting of a ballot to
determine which organization the crossing watchmen desire to represent them.
As the evidence clearly shows this was not done, the Board decides that a poll
shall be taken in which all interested parties shall be privileged to participate,
following the method of procedure in the distribution, casting, tabulating, etc.,
of the ballots, as outlined in this decision. LI-MofW. Decision No. 418.
Question as to whether employees represented by the Brotherhood of
Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop Laborers are entitled to
working agreement and rules governing working conditions as provided for in
Decision No. 119. Decision-Case withdrawn by employees, and therefore
considered closed by the Board. AE-MofW. Decision No. 456.
Dispute in regard to agreement negotiations affecting maintenance of way
and railway shop laborers. Board addressed certain communications to the
parties involved in this dispute, suggesting that conference be held between
representatives of the employees and representatives of the managers for the
purpose of harmonizing differences that now exist. Decision-Case will be
considered closed and if after conference suggested there is still disagreement
on which a decision of the Board is desired, upon receipt of proper advice to
that effect such dispute will be given due consideration. StL&H-MofW.
Decision No. 514.
5. Telegraph Employees.
Question as to right of representation in negotiating an agreement cover-
ing rules for the governing of agents and agent telegraphers. Decision-Board
decides that classes of employees included within the scope of the agreement
between the carrier and the Order of Railroad Station Agents do not consti-
tute a separate class of whom a majority may designate what organization
shall represent them in negotiations pertaining to wages and working condi-
tions. The only employees covered by the said agreement, which the Order of
Railroad Telegraphers claims to represent, are agents and agent telegraphers
and the Board holds that employees filling these positions are not a class
separate and distinct from positions designated in Rule 1 of Decision No. 757.
218
Evidence is not conclusive as to what organization represents a majority of
the employees included in Rule 1, Decision No. 757, and the Labor Board,
therefore, directs that a vote shall be taken to determine the choice of a ma-
jority of the employees included in said rule as to their representation in the
negotiation of rules and working conditions. Conference to be held on or
before April 1, 1922, and arrange all details of said proposed ballot and elec-
tion along the same lines and under rules and regulations analogous to those
provided for in Decision No. 218. When ballots have been canvassed the
results should be reported to the Board and the authorized representative of
the carrier and chosen representatives of the employees will proceed with the
negotiation of rules. CI&W-Telegrs. Decision No. 825.
Question as to whether the Order of Railroad Telegraphers is entitled to
negotiate an agreement covering rules and working conditions for the gov-
ernment of agents, agent-telegraphers, and telegraphers. Decision-Board
has given due consideration to arguments presented by interested parties, and
reaffirms its former decisions that the majority of any craft or class of em-
ployees shall have the right to determine what organization shall represent
members of such craft or class, and shall have the right to make an agree-
ment which shall apply to all employees in such craft or class. Evidence be-
fore the Board is not conclusive as to whether the Order of Railroad Tele-
graphers represents a majority of the classes referred to, and the Board directs.
that a poll shall be taken of the classes of employees designated in Rule 1 of
Decision No. 757, who are in the service at the time of the receipt of this
decision, to determine the choice of a majority thereof as to whether the
Order of Railroad Telegraphers shall represent them in such negotiations.
Conference shall be held on or before April 1, 1922, and arrange all the
details of a secret ballot and election along the same lines and under rules
and regulations analogous to those provided in Decision No. 218 of the Labor
Board. When the ballots have been canvassed the results shall be reported to
the Board and the authorized representatives of the carrier and employees
will proceed with the negotiation of rules. B&SCorp-Telegrs. Decision
No. 826.
+
Dispute with reference to negotiation of rules for the government of em-
ployees in telegraph service. Decision-Board decides that, in view of the re-
fusal of the duly elected representatives of the employees in telegraph service
to negotiate with the carrier, the rules promulgated by the Labor Board in
Decision No. 757 shall apply to employees in telegraph service, to be effective
April 1, 1922. P&R-Telegrs. Decision No. 832.
6. Dispatchers.
Question as to right of American Train Dispatchers' Association to
negotiate an agreement with carrier covering rules and working conditions
for train dispatchers. Decision-In view of fact that vote heretofore taken
is not conclusive and in view of expressed willingness of the parties to this
dispute to have another vote taken, Board orders that a poll shall be taken
of all train dispatchers in the service at the time of receipt of decision to
determine the choice of a majority thereof as to their representatives in the
negotiation of rules. Conference to be held on or before March 15, 1922, and
arrange all the details of the proposed balloting and election along the same
lines and under rules and regulations analogous to those provided in De-
cision No. 218 of the Labor Board and when the ballots have been canvassed
the result shall be reported to the Board and the chosen representatives of the
carrier and the employees will proceed with the negotiation of rules.
CM&StP-ATDA. Decision No. 775.
7. Supervisors of Mechanics.
Dispute in regard to right of International Association of Railroad Super-
visors of Mechanics to negotiate rules and working conditions affecting Me-
chanical Department Supervisory Forces. Decision-Evidence submitted indi-
cates there has been a lack of cooperation on part of interested parties in ascer-
taining the wishes of the foremen in regard to representation. It is also noted
that the petitions bear the names of general foremen who are in the official
219
class under the ruling of the Interstate Commerce Commission. The method
followed by both parties was not in accordance with the meaning and intent
of Decision No. 119 and the Board decides that a conference shall be held be-
tween the duly authorized representatives of the carrier, the duly authorized
representatives of the International Association of Supervisors of Mechanics,
the duly authorized representatives of any other organization representing
mechanical foremen whose by-laws or constitution establishes the fact that the
organization was established for performing functions of a labor organization
as contemplated in Title III of the Transportation Act, and the duly author-
ized representatives of 100 or more unorganized employees, following the
method of procedure for the distribution, casting, counting, etc., of the ballots
as prescribed in this decision. CRI&P-IAof Sof Mech. Decision No. 419.
C&A. Decision No. 629. C&NW. Decision No. 631.
8. General,
Question whether employees are within their rights in selecting and duly
authorizing some one other than an employee of their employing road as their
agent or counsel in negotiating an agreement. Decision-Yes. Title III of
Transportation Act and various decisions of the Board clearly establishes and
recognizes the right of employees to designate representatives of their own
choice and to duly authorize such agents to represent them and to perform
all things for them and in their name as they or each of them could do if
personally present. Vir-REDeptAFofL. Int. 3 to Decision 119.
REST.
Request for reinstatement and pay for time. lost of fireman dismissed
account alleging refusal of service due to fact fireman on return to terminal
and completing regular assignment declined further service, claiming needed
rest. Sustained. LA&SL-E&F. Decision No. 36.
RETROACTIVE EFFECT OF TRANSPORTATION ACT. See
"Jurisdiction of Labor Board Under Transportation Act.”
ROAD SERVICE-PAY FOR.
1. Regular.
2. Emergency.
1. Regular.
Dispute as to just and reasonable rules relating to overtime payments and
payments for regular and emergency road service. to govern shop forces_on
which disagreements had been certified to the Board in conformity with De-
cision 119. Decision-The seven rules set out in the decision as approved by
the Board, corresponding to the seven rules Nos. 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14 and 15 of
the National Shop Agreement are just and reasonable and shall apply, effective
August 16, 1921, to each of the carriers set out under the caption "Parties to
the dispute," except in such instances as any particular carrier may have
agreed with its employees upon one or more of said rules, in which case the
rule or rules agreed upon by the carrier and its employees shall apply on said
road. C&NW et al-ShCfts. Decision No. 222 and Addenda.
Question as to whether employees sent out from headquarters to do work
without outfit cars are entitled to continuous time until return to assembling
point, including all time traveling and waiting. Decision-No; payment should
be made in accordance with Sec. (i), Art. V, of National M. of W. Agree-
ment. MC-MofW. Decision No. 208.
Claim that certain employees, now classified as linemen, should be classi-
fied and paid as electricians under Rules 43 and 140, and as road mechanics
under Rule 15, of the National Agreement. Decision-Employees in question
are performing work specified in Rule 140 and shall be classified and paid as
electricians in accordance with Rule 43; and employees regularly assigned to
road service shall be paid in accordance with Rule 15. ŎWRR&NCO-SC.
Decision No. 212.
220
2. Emergency.
Dispute as to just and reasonable rules relating to overtime payments and
payments for regular and emergency road service to govern shop forces on
which disagreements had been certified to the Board in conformity with De-
cision No. 119. Decision-The seven rules set out in the decision as approved
by the Board, corresponding to the seven rules Nos. 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14 and 15
of the National Shop Agreement, are just and reasonable and shall apply,
effective August 16, 1921, to each of the carriers set out under the caption
"Parties to the dispute," except in such instances as any particular carrier
may have agreed with its employees upon one or more of said rules, in which
case, the rule or rules agreed upon by the carrier and its employees shall apply
on said road. C&NWetal-ShCfts. Decision No. 222.
Claim that certain mechanics in the B&B Departments who are sent out
from regular headquarters and required to work, wait or travel as regulated
by train service, should be paid straight time for all time traveling and wait-
ing in accordance with Section (m), Article V of the National Maintenance
of Way Agreement. Decision-Employees in question are properly com-
pensated in accordance with Section (i) of the National Agreement.
CCC&StL-MofW. Decision No. 249.
Question as to rules in Signalmen's National Agreement applicable to
certain signalmen who, while assigned to regular eight-hour day on hourly
basis with regular starting and quitting time, are required at least once a
week to go out on road to distribute or assist in distribution of batteries to
various signals over their territory, returning to home station same day. On
such occasions employees frequently consume several hours traveling and
waiting in addition to their regular day for which they receive no extra
compensation except for actual service performed. Claim is made for con-
tinuous time from time required to report to time they return to home station,
whether waiting or traveling, in accordance with Sec. 17, Art. II, of the
agreement. Decision-Board decides that Secs. 18 and 20, Art. II, of the
agreement referred to, which have reference to pay of men sent out on road,
are applicable to the service in question. SP-Sig. Decision No. 293.
Question as to whether under Rule 10 of National Shop Agreement
employees should be paid for time traveling to their home station when such
employees are permitted to go to bed for five or more hours on the cars on
which they are traveling. Decision-Under ruie referred to employees shall
be paid for all time traveling, irrespective of whether or not they are relieved
and permitted to go to bed for the time specified. AA-SC. Decision No. 338.
Question as to proper compensation for three employees temporarily as-
signed to perform telegraph line work occasioned by storm. These employees
were compensated under Rule 15 of the National Shop Agreement, while
employees claim they should have been paid in accordance with Rule 10 of
the agreement. Decision-The service in question should have been compen-
sated for under Rule 10 of the agreement; therefore, the employees in ques-
tion should be reimbursed to the extent of the difference between the amount
that they should have earned under the provisions of Rule 10 as compared
with their actual compensation under Rule 15. SP-ShopCrafts. Decision
No. 423.
RIGHT OF REPRESENTATION. See "Representation Rights."
RULES. Incorporating into schedules. See "Schedules, Incorporating Rates
and Rules Into."
RULES OF NATIONAL AGREEMENTS.
Application of-See "National Agreements."
Abrogation of-See "Decision 119."
Temporary continuance of-See "Add. 2 to Decision 119."
Changes in See "Decisions 222, 501, 630, 707, 722, 723, 725."
221
RULES. Validity of.
Where rules agreed to with employees in Car Department represented by
American Federation of Railroad Workers provide for reducing hours to 40
per week before force is reduced, and where for employees in same department
represented by American Federation of Labor rules of National Shop Agree-
ment govern, and which provide for reducing the force when necessary to
reduce expenses; question as to which set of rules are valid and in effect.
Decided that rules governing each of the organizations are in effect for em-
ployees represented by each of them. NYC (West)-AFofRRW—AFofL.
Decision No. 37.
RULES AND WORKING CONDITIONS. Requests for
Representation in the matter of negotiating. See "Representation Rights."
1. Changes in
2. Retention of more favorable
3. New Rules
4. Miscellaneous.
1. Changes in.
Question as to continuation of, or modification of rules, orders, agreements,
etc., established by U. S. Railroad Administration. Decision-This question
is being separated from wage question and will be given further hearing and
consideration, pending which no changes shall be made in the rules, conditions
and agreements in effect under authority of Railroad Administration, except
by agreement between carrier and employees concerned. (See Decision for
roads and employees involved.) Page 8, Decision No. 2.
Request of marine employees on railroad-operated floating equipment in
Port of San Francisco for changes in rules and working conditions.
sideration denied. NWP-SP-AT&SF-WP-MM&PofA-MEBA-FBU
of C. Decision No. 20.
Con-
Request for increase in wages and change in working conditions. Denied.
GN-Diningand SleepCarEmp. Decision No. 54.
Question as to proper rule to be adopted covering "duration of agreement.'
Board decided Conductors' rule is just and reasonable and should be adopted
by trainmen. N&W-Tr. Decision No. 64.
Where road, party to Decision 2 of Labor Board, reduced wages, made
deductions in pay, and altered working conditions of certain classes of
employees, without first seeking conference with representatives of em-
ployees interested, or obtaining consent of said employees, question as to
whether Decision 2 was violated by road concerned. Decision-Carrier vio-
lated Decision 2 of Labor Board and acted in conflict with provisions of
Transportation Act. Erie-MofW-ATDA. Decision No. 91.
Request of Order of Sleeping Car Conductors for increases in wages and
changes in working conditions. Denied-present rates and working conditions
just and reasonable. PullmanCo-OSCC. Decision No. 107.
Request of fifteen organizations of employees of sixty-seven so-called
"Short Line" railroads for application to them of the agreements, orders, etc.,
of U. S. Railroad Administration, and for substantially the same scale of
wages as now apply to employees of the standard railroads. Case dismissed—
reasons stated in decision. (See decisions for railroads and employees af-
fected.) Decision 108.
Dispute as to continuation of, or changes in, rules and working agree-
ments established by U. S. Railroad Administration. Decision-(1) Direction
of Labor Board in Decision 2 extending said rules, etc., will terminate July
1, 1921; (2) respective employees and carriers covered by dispute to begin
conferences and decide so much of dispute relating to rules and working con-
ditions as may be possible. Board to be kept advised of final agreements
and disagreements-rules agreed to by such conferences to be consistent with
certain principles set forth in Exhibit attached to decision; (3) Board will
promulgate such rules as it determines just and reasonable as soon after
July 1, 1921, as possible, same to be effective as of July 1, 1921, and applicable
222
to those classes for whom rules were not agreed to; (4) Present hearings in
dispute will proceed so Board may be in position to decide rules which may
be necessary to promulgate; (5) Agreements entered into since March 1, 1920,
not affected by this decision. (See decision for railroads and employees cov-
ered.) Decision No. 119.
Ruling of Board authorizing, as a temporary measure, pending final set-
tlement by Board of the rules question (1) Pro rata rates for overtime, in
lieu of time and one-half, except for those classes with whom agreements
have been reached, and those classes which were receiving a higher rate than
pro rata prior to promulgation of any general order of Railroad Administra-
tion; (2) Continuation of rules established by R. R. Administration until
such time as other rules are considered and decided; (3) Decision 119 not
modified in any respect other than above specified; (4) Rules agreed upon
by carrier and employees to be effective July 1, 1921. Add. 2 to Decision
No. 119.
Where road, party to Decision 2, about December 1, 1920, issued an order
putting into effect reduced rates of pay and changed working conditions,
without first seeking or holding conference with representatives of employees
concerned, question as to whether Decision 2 was violated by road concerned
-road's contention being that positions involved were abolished and men
re-employed on individual contracts. Decision-Road violated Decision 2 of
Labor Board, and should restore the said positions and the pay, duties and
obligations of said positions to what they were on July 20, 1920, as established
by Decision 2; and further decided that persons serving in said positions just
prior to effective date of the carrier's order be reinstated, if they so desire,
and receive pay equal to what they would have received if occupying such
positions, at the rate provided by Decision 2, from the date removed or re-
duced in pay to the date of reinstatement, less any amount that may have
been earned by personal service in the meantime. StLSW-Mof W. Decision
No. 120.
149.
Petition of carrier for rehearing on Decision 120. Denied. Decision No.
Request of carrier for reduction in rates of pay and changes in rules and
working conditions of train and engine employees. Decision-Apply decreases
authorized by Decision 147, effective July 1, 1921, to representatives of carrier
and employees to confer and decide so much of dispute concerning rules as
may be possible, referring back to Board the unsettled rules, if any; and as
soon as possible after July 1, 1921, the Board will promulgate such rules as
it determines to be just and reasonable to cover any working conditions regard-
ing which parties may have failed of agreement, such rules to be effective
as of July 1, 1921. D&SL-EFCT. Decision No. 148.
Dispute as to just and reasonable rules relating to overtime payments and
payments for regular and emergency road service to govern shop forces on
which disagreements had been certified to the Board in conformity with De-
cision 119. Decision-The seven rules set out in the decision as approved by
the Board, corresponding to the seven rules Nos. 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14 and 15
of the National Shop Agreement are just and reasonable and shall apply,
effective August 16, 1921, to each of the carriers set out under the caption
"Parties to the dispute," except in such instances as any particular carrier
may have agreed with its employees upon one or more of said rules, in which
case, the rule or rules agreed upon by the carrier and its employees shall
apply on said road. C&NW et al-ShCfts. Decision No. 222 and Addenda.
Request of carrier for authority to revise rules and working conditions
and rates of pay for train and engine service employees, maintenance of equip-
ment employees, station agents, assistant station agents and telegraph opera-
tors. Decision-Board is sympathetic with principle that "inability of the
carrier to pay" is not controlling factor in fixing wages, but recognizes that it
is entitled to secondary consideration with certain type of carrier dependent
almost entirely on local business of whose principal function in the final
analysis is development and upbuilding of a new or comparatively new coun-
try. It has given careful consideration to the seven points laid down in the
Transportation Act, to other relevant circumstances as well as the peculiar
223
conditions surrounding the operation of this carrier; and decides that effective
November 1, 1921, rates of pay specified in this decision are authorized. Rules
and working conditions will be reserved for later hearing, as organizations
of train and engine service and station telegraph service announced they were
not prepared to proceed with this question. (Decision dissented from by A. O.
Wharton, of Board, on the grounds of the unjust and unreasonable treatment
accorded shop employees under the decision and the indefensibly low rates
established for laborers, reciting the various reasons therefor. W. L. Mc-
Menimen, of the Board, also states he is not in accord with majority decision.
and cannot concur in dissenting opinion.) NOGN-EFCT-Telgrs-ShCfts.
Decision No. 290.
Promulgation by Labor Board of certain additional rules relating to hours
of service, seniority, filling vacancies, reduction of forces, grievances, etc., to
govern shop forces, effective October 16, 1921, and December 1, 1921, which
the Board has determined to be just and reasonable, in addition to those issued
in Decision No. 222; superseding similar rules of National Shop Agreement.
Addenda 3 and 6 to Decision No. 222.
Question as to whether employees represented by the Brotherhood of
Maintenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop Laborers are entitled to
working agreement and rules governing working conditions as provided for
in Decision No. 119. Decision-Case withdrawn by employees, and therefore
considered closed by the Board. AE-MofW. Decision No. 456.
Promulgation by Labor Board of rules and working conditions covering
employees in the maintenance of way department, effective December 16, 1921,
which the Board has determined to be just and reasonable and which super-
sede all rules, practices and working conditions in conflict therewith governing
the class of employees specified in Article I of this decision. ATSF et al-
Mof W. Decision No. 501. Addenda 1 and 2 to Decision No. 501.
Dispute in regard to negotiating rules to govern working conditions—no
facts given. Decision-At hearing conducted by the Board both parties to
dispute agreed to arrange a conference at an early date for this purpose and
file is therefore closed. Joplin Union Ter Co-Clerks.
Joplin Union TerCo-Clerks. Decision No. 582.
Promulgation by the Labor Board of rules and working conditions govern-
ing clerical employees, effective February 1, 1922, which the Board has deter-
mined to be just and reasonable. Dissenting opinion filed by Messrs. Higgins,
Elliott and Baker with respect to Rule 57 of this decision, which provides
punitive payment for service rendered beyond ninth hour, it being their judg-
ment that the imposing of rules requiring punitive payment for any service
rendered for employees covered by this decision within the tenth hour period
is unjust, unfair and unreasonable, and burdens the carrier with an uneco-
nomical condition. This dissenting opinion is answered by Board Members
McMenimen, Hooper, Hanger and Wharton. AT&SF et al-Clerks. Decision
No. 630. Addenda 1, 2 and 3 to Decision No. 630.
Promulgation of rules covering working conditions, effective February 16,
1922, which the Board considers just and reasonable for the government of
employees performing work generally recognized as signal work, except signal
maintainers, who for 50 per cent or more of their time perform work as
defined in Rules 140 and 141 of Decision No. 222 and addenda thereto. AT&SF
et al-Sig. Decision No. 707.
Question as to application of rules governing working conditions for train
dispatchers to chief train dispatchers. Decision-This dispute is returned to
the employees and carriers for conference and further consideration in accord-
ance with Section 1 of General Instructions of Decision No. 721. MStP&
SSTM-ATDA. Decision No. 810. WM-ATDA. Decision No. 811. MC-
SP.
Decision No. 812. LI. Decision No. 813. D&RG. Decision No. 814.
Decision No. 815. D&RG. Decision No. 848. I&GN. Decision No. 849.
CM&StP. Decision No. 850. SP. Decision No. 866.
Dispute with reference to wages and rules covering working conditions of
dining-car stewards. Case withdrawn by interested parties and file closed.
SP-Broof DiningCarCon. Decisions Nos. 827, 828.
Dispute with reference to negotiation of rules for the government of
employees in telegraph service. Decision-Board decides that, in view of the
refusal of the duly elected representatives of the employees in telegraph service
224
to negotiate with the carrier, the rules promulgated by the Labor Board in
Decision No. 757 shall apply to employees in telegraph service, to be effective
April 1, 1922. P&R-Telegrs. Decision No. 832.
Promulgation by Labor Board of rules covering working conditions of
stationary engineers, except employees who are covered by the provisions of
Decision No. 222 and addenda thereto, effective April 1, 1922, which it has
decided are just and reasonable. B&OCT-C&A-Kanawha&MichCen-NYC
-IUofS&OE. Decision No. 830.
Dispute in regard to alleged refusal of carrier to negotiate rules and
working conditions. Employees claim that they have endeavored to secure
conference with the carrier for purpose of discussing rules and working con-
ditions, but that said carrier declined to enter into such negotiations. Decision
-At oral hearing which was conducted by the Labor Board only representa-
tives of the employees were present and after a general discussion of their
case they stated that further effort would be made on their part to secure a
conference with the carrier for the purpose of settling the dispute in question,
but requested that the Board accept evidence submitted and in the event of
their failure to effect settlement and the case is again brought to the attention
of the Board that such evidence be then considered. This case is therefore
considered closed, but if further submission is made the evidence which has
been submitted will be given due consideration. DTSL-ShopCrafts. Deci-
sion No. 422.
Promulgation by the Labor Board of rules and working conditions for
the government of train dispatchers, effective March 1, 1922, which the Board
has decided to be just and reasonable. A&V et al-ATDA. Decision No. 721.
Addendum 1 to Decision No. 721.
Promulgation by Labor Board of rules covering working conditions for
employees of the American Railway Express Company and Southeastern
Express Company, effective March 1, 1922, which the Board has decided as
just and reasonable. ARE-Clks et al. Decision No. 722. SEExpCo-Clks.
Decision No. 723.
Promulgation by Labor Board of rules covering working conditions for
stationary and hoisting engineers, stationary firemen, boiler men, water tenders,
engineroom oilers, flue blowers and borers, fire knockers and cinder-pit men,
fire builders and coal passers, effective March 1, 1922, which the Board decides
to be just and reasonable. AT&SF et al-IntBroofF&Oilers. Decision No.
725. Addendum No. 1 to Decision No. 725.
-
Promulgation by Labor Board of rules covering working conditions for
telegraph employees, effective March 16, 1922, which the Board decides are
just and reasonable. A&V et al-Telegrs. Decision No. 757. Addenda 1, 2
and 3.
Promulgation by Labor Board of rules covering working conditions for
supervisors of mechanics, effective March 1, 1922, which the Board decides
Decision
to be just and reasonable. B&OCT et al-IAofRRSofMech.
No. 726.
Question as to whether rules and regulations in effect on the American
Railway Express Company were binding upon the Southeastern Express Com-
pany when the latter company commenced operation on the lines of the carriers
over which the American Railway Express Company operated prior to May 1,
1921. Decision-Board decides that the Southeastern Express Company was
not bound by any rules and regulations of employment previously in effect
for employees of the American Railway Express Company. Dissenting opinion
filed by Board Member Wharton, who takes the position that he cannot sub-
scribe to any procedure which in effect reduces wage and working conditions
adversely affecting the employees in the service of a carrier, unless or until
the intent and spirit of the law has been complied with, and where disagree-
ment results, the dispute is submitted to the Board and decided upon its merits;
that when the Southeastern Express Company commenced actual operation on
May 1, 1921, it began performing the same identical service as that of the
American Railway Express Company and continued in its service practically
all of the employees who had been in the service of the American Railway
Express Company, but established lower rates of pay and less favorable
225
working conditions than those in effect on the American Railway Express
Company, and that neither the provisions of the Transportation Act nor
decisions or rules of procedure promulgated by the Labor Board were
observed by this carrier in fixing wage rates or conditions of employment.
SEECO-Clks. Decision No. 821.
Dispute with reference to negotiation of rules for the government of train
dispatchers. Decision-Case withdrawn by parties at interest and file closed.
NY&LB-ATDA. Decision No. 883. ACL-ATDA. Decision No. 884.
This decision relates to the undecided portion of Docket 17, controversy
between the organizations of employees and the carriers indicated, and is
applicable only to the question of rules governing working conditions for the
employees on railroad-operated floating equipment in the port of San Fran-
cisco, California. Evidence was submitted in this case by the interested parties
on August 31, September 1, 3 and 4, 1920. Decision No. 20 of the Board,
dated November 23, 1920, disposed of dispute regarding wages, but the Board
did not undertake to consider or change the rules and working conditions
then in existence, which it understood at that time, and does now, are those
in force by the authority of the U. S. Railroad Administration. Decision-
Due to the lapse of time since this question was heard and the possibility that
conditions today may be materially changed from those existing in 1920, the
Board deems it advisable to remand this question to the interested parties with
the request that they again confer on the subject matter of the dispute and
endeavor to reach an agreement as to rules covering conditions of service.
Should the conference fail to reach an agreement, a joint submission, if pos-
sible, otherwise ex-parte submission, of the disputed questions should be made
and the Board furnished with fifteen copies, the submission to be prepared
in the form outlined in this decision-NWP-AT&SF-WP-MMPof A-
MEBA-FBUofC. Decision No. 887.
Question (a) what rules governing working conditions shall be incorporated
in agreement between the Toledo & Ohio Central Railway and the American
Federation of Railroad Workers, governing carmen and blacksmiths, and
(b) what rules shall be incorporated in agreement between the Zanesville &
Western Railway and the American Federation of Railroad Workers, govern-
ing all of the so-called shop crafts? Decision-(a) Rules agreed upon in
conference pursuant to issuance of Decision No. 119, affecting blacksmiths
and carmen, shall be incorporated in agreement governing these classes of
employees. With reference to rules upon which no agreement could be
reached, which were submitted to the Labor Board for decision, Board decides
that rules as shown in Decision No. 222 and addenda thereto, corresponding
to the rules in dispute, shall be incorporated into the agreement in so far as
the said rules pertain to these crafts. (b) Rules agreed upon in conference
pursuant to issuance of Decision No. 119, affecting all shop crafts on the
Zanesville & Western, shall be incorporated in agreement covering these
classes of employees. With reference to the rules upon which no agreement
could be reached, the Board decides that the rules as shown in Decision No.
222 and addenda thereto, corresponding to the rules in dispute, shall be incor-
porated into the agreement between the parties to this dispute. T&OC—Z&W
-AFofRRW. Decision No. 892.
Question as to whether the provisions of Decision No. 222 and addenda
thereto shall be applied to car department employees in the manner provided
therein, and from the effective date therein specified. (These car department
employees represented by the American Federation of Railroad Workers were
made parties to Decision No. 119 by Addendum 1 thereto, but were not parties
to Decision No. 222.) Upon the issuance of Decision No. 222, the manage-
ment applied the provisions specified therein to all classes of employees enu-
merated, regardless of organization affiliation, carrier taking the position that
it would have been inconsistent to have continued more favorable working
conditions to employees who were members of the American Federation of
Railroad Workers, and to have denied the more favorable conditions to em-
ployees who were members of the other organizations, who, in some instances,
worked in the same shop and in other instances worked in the same gang.
Employees contend that the working conditions in effect immediately prior to
226
the negotiations conducted with the carrier should remain in full force and
effect, until superseded or amended by specific decision of the Board upon
the disputed rules submitted to it by said American Federation of Railroad
Workers and the management, and that the car department employees be
reimbursed to the extent that they have suffered a wage loss account of alleged
improper application of Decision No. 222. Decision-Based upon evidence
submitted and circumstances cited in this case, the Board is of the opinion
that it would have been irregular and would undoubtedly have caused consider-
able dissatisfaction to have established different working conditions for em-
ployees who had previously enjoyed the same working conditions and who are
at present and have been in the past considered in the same general class, and
the Board therefore decides that the provisions of Decision No. 222 and addenda
thereto shall apply to the car workers in the same manner and from the same
effective date as if they had been included in original Decision No. 222 and
addenda thereto. W&LE-AFofRRW. Decision No. 893.
Dispute regarding negotiation of rules for government of employees in
telegraph service. No facts given, case withdrawn and file closed. Pa-Tel.
Decision No. 916.
Request of Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Hand-
lers, Express and Station Employees for rehearing on Decision No. 821, in
which it was decided that rules and regulations, and conditions of employment
in effect on the American Railway Express Company were not binding upon
the Southern Express Company when that company commenced operation on
the lines of the carrier over which the American Railway Express Com-
pany operated prior to May 1, 1921. Decision-The Board, after due con-
sideration of the motion of the employees named, for rehearing of the dis-
pute referred to overruled said motion and declined to reopen said case.
Clks. Decision No. 948.
2. Retention of more favorable.
Question as to whether the adoption of the eight-within-ten hour rule of
Sup. 24 is mandatory, or whether present basic day rule, which is more
favorable, may be retained. Decision-Have option of accepting or rejecting
in its entirety the eight-within-ten hour rule. T&P-E&F. Decision No. 93.
3. New Rules.
Request for new rule covering the handling of baggage and of joint baggage
and express. Board without jurisdiction account Express Company and joint
baggage and express messengers in employ of Express Company, while parties
to contract with railroad company, were not parties to present dispute.
N&W-Tr. Decision No. 63.
Where schedule contains rule providing that when a yard foreman refuses
to take a crew when he stands for it or gives up a crew and goes back to
helping, he forfeits his standing as foreman and must go behind all promoted
men, but not interfering with his seniority as a helper; request is made for
new rule that where a foreman forfeits seniority as referred to in above
rule, he may displace any junior helper. Denied Board deciding existing
rule and practice just and reasonable. N&W-Tr. Decision No. 65.
Request for new rule providing that vacancies occurring in the ranks of
yardmen will be filled with promotable men; also that the organizations repre-
sented in the agreement be insured not less than 85% of the men employed
in the yard and be given preference in employmnt. Denied-Board decides
present rule or practice is just and reasonable. N&W-Tr. Decision No. 66.
Request for new rule providing that yardmen riding cars on hump or
gravity yards will not be required to control more than one car unless coupled
together-employees contending this is safety provision and practice of dis-
connecting cars and then allowing them to bump together while on hump
should be discontinued alleging dangerous operation-road holds practice in
effect many years and not a dangerous one and this manner of handling
cars is in interest of economy and efficiency. Decision-Present rule or
practice is just and reasonable. N&W-Tr. Decision No. 67.
227
Request for new rule providing that in filling switchtenders' positions,
preference will be given to partially disabled former yard and train service
employees. Denied-Present practice just and reasonable. N&W-Tr. De-
cision No. 68.
Request for additional paragraph amending schedule rule which defines
local or way freight service. Parties at interest agreed upon settlement in
this case and withdrew same from consideration by Labor Board. OWRR&N
-E&F. Decision No. 310.
Request for rule guaranteeing men in assigned service certain mileage
per day for each day of assignment. Parties at interest agreed upon settle-
ment and withdrew case from consideration by Labor Board. OWRR&N-
E&F. Decision No. 311.
Request for rule providing for payment of differential of 80 cents per
100 miles above valley rates on certain districts. Parties at interest agreed
upon settlement and withdrew case from Board. OWRR&N-E&F. Decision
No. 312.
Request for rule providing that engineers and firemen will report for and
be relieved at passenger station at certain points. Parties at interest agreed
upon settlement and withdrew the case from the Board. OWRR&N—E&F.
Decision No. 313.
Request for rule to provide for payment of initial and terminal switching
delays on minute basis. Parties at interest agreed upon settlement and with-
drew case from Board. OWRR&N-E&F. Decision No. 314.
Request for rule providing that the adjustment of any claim will establish
the basis for the adjustment of similar claims. Parties at interest agreed
upon settlement and withdrew case from Board. OWRR&N-E&F. De-
cision No. 315.
Request for rules governing hostler service.
upon settlement and withdrew case from Board.
cision No. 316.
Parties at interest agreed
OWRR&N Co-E&F. De-
Dispute regarding negotiation of rules for train dispatchers. Parties
at interest agreed upon withdrawal of case, matter removed from docket
and file closed. NCSt.L-ATDA. Decision No. 938.
4. Miscellaneous.
Question as to whether shop employees of the Louisiana Southern Railway
Company should be included in agreement covering rules and working condi-
tions for the Gulf Coast Lines. Decision-From evidence submitted, Board
decides that the Louisiana Southern Railway Company is not a part of the
Gulf Coast Lines, and that the carrier is within its rights in insisting that the
shop employees of the Louisiana Southern Railway Company be covered by a
separate agreement. Dissenting opinion filed by Board Member Wharton
who takes the position: (a) The Louisiana Southern Railroad is operated by
the Gulf Coast Lines, under an operating contract, and the term "Gulf Coast
Lines" has always been understood to apply to certain carriers, including the
Louisiana Southern Railway Company, and the officers of the Gulf Coast
Lines are likewise the officers of the Louisiana Southern Railway Company.
(b) Carrier's reason for desiring the Louisiana Southern omitted from the
Gulf Coast Lines' agreement is apparently that they did not feel that rules
and working conditions applicable to the other lines should be imposed upon
the Louisiana Southern, and that to do so would impose a financial burden
that would be difficult, if not impossible to carry. An analysis of the rules
submitted to the Board by the carrier (ex parte) on June 30, 1921, which
carrier requested to be made applicable to the Louisiana Southern, developed
that said rules correspond closely to the so-called National Agreement pro-
mulgated by the Railroad Administration, and are, as a whole, much more
favorable to the employees than the rules that have been promulgated by the
Board in its Decision No. 222, and are also more favorable to the employees
than the rules proposed by the carrier for the other lines it operates. GCL-
ShCrfts. Decision No. 833.
228
RUNAROUNDS.
1. Not called or not used in turn.
2. A/c using crews from other districts.
3. In emergencies.
4. A/c using regular assigned crews while extra crews available.
5. Miscellaneous.
1. Not called or not used in turn.
When line was opened after snow blockade, crew, who had been assigned
to regular car, was ordered to again report for duty and was assigned to same
car to which assigned prior to blockade. Brakemen reported for duty several
days in advance of conductor but were not used until the regular conductor
arrived, and claim is made by these brakemen for time so held under the
"not called in turn" rule. Sustained. D&SL-EFC&T. Decision No. 28.
Claim of firemen for runaround account being available and not called in
his regular turn. Case withdrawn, parties at interest agreeing on settlement.
OWRR&N-E&F. Decision No. 102.
Claim for runaround by engineer and fireman who, although called in turn,
Decision-Evidence
were delayed in terminal and runaround by another crew.
shows that these men were runaround in the terminal after being called and
ander the rule of the agreement reading "if an engineer (or fireman) is run-
around in terminal after being called he will be paid 100 miles and be permitted
to continue his trip" they should have been paid 100 miles. MK&T—CTE&F.
Decision No. 774.
Claim of extra passenger brakemen for pay for service trip account freight
brakeman called and used. Board without jurisdiction, matter having occurred
before passage Transportation Act. SP-C&T. Decision No. 321.
2. A/c using crews from other districts.
Claim for runaround account regular freight crew assigned to another
district being used in temporary or unassigned snow plow service on the
district to which claimants were assigned. Sustained. D&SL-EFC&T. De-
cision No. 24.
3. In Emergencies.
Claim of road crew for runaround account yard crew sent out on main
line to bring section men into terminal. Decision-Denied-yard crew used
De-
in "emergency" within meaning of yardmen's rule.
cision No. 25.
D&SL-EFC&T.
A regularly assigned fireman became ill on his return trip and it was
necessary to relieve him en route, and there being no extra fireman available
at the point of relief a brakeman was called. There was at this relief point,
however, one fireman who was regularly assigned to a switch engine and who
was off duty at the time, and the employees are claiming that as this fireman
was available to relieve the fireman who was taken sick that he should have
been used instead of the brakeman on the run in question and on account of
not having been so used should be allowed a minimum day's pay. Decision—
Claim of the employees is not supported by any rule in the agreement and is,
therefore, denied. MK&T-CTE&F. Decision No. 773.
4. A/c using regular assigned crews while extra crews available.
Claim of extra engineer for one hundred miles for runaround, account
crew assigned to switch engine being used for freight work. Case withdrawn
-parties at interest agreeing on settlement. OWRR&N-E&F. Decision
No. 100.
5. Miscellaneous.
Claim for runaround by regularly assigned engineer, account being instructed
to run his train as second section instead of first. Claim denied-engineer
went out on the train for which he was called. LA&SL-E&F. Decision
No. 105.
229
Claim for runarounds by certain engineers and firemen, who, although
called in turn, were not sent out in turn due to fact that while coupled to their
train and making it up an express train of cantaloupes arrived at terminal
and another crew was called to take it out, and left the terminal ahead of the
crew in question, thereby running around them. Carrier states that it would
not be practicable to change engines in cases of this kind as both these trains
were partly made up and in fact were about ready to leave and it would cause
a great deal of delay and unnecessary work to change engines under these con-
ditions. It was a matter which it was not able to control as it is not always
known which train will go out first and under similar cases it has been the
practice for years to call the crews in their turn to go to work making up
their trains and they left the terminal when they got their train ready. De-
cision-Position of carrier is sustained. ElPaso&SW-E&F. Decision No. 486.
RUNNING THROUGH TERMINALS. See "Terminals-Running in
and out and through."
ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RAILWAY.
Petition of St. L. S. W. Ry. for rehearing on Decision 120. Denied.
Decision No. 149.
SANTA FE TYPE ENGINES. Basis to be used in applying increases
under Decision 2 for.
See "Decision 2-Application of."
SATURDAY AFTERNOONS. Claim for Pay when Working.
Claim of clerks for additional compensation for work performed on Satur-
day afternoons. Decision-Claim denied. GC&SF-Clks. Decision No. 280.
Claim of certain clerical employees for Saturday afternoons off with pay
under Rule 57 of the Clerks' National Agreement. Case withdrawn by em-
ployees and file closed. PM-Clerks. Decision No. 395.
Claim of certain clerical employees in the general offices of the carrier,
who were required to work on various Saturday afternoons for additional
compensation for service performed thereon, contention being made under Rule
57 of the Clerks' National Agreement. Decision-In the opinion of the Board
the last paragraph of Rule 57 does not contemplate that employees who are
required to work on Saturday afternoons shall be paid overtime therefor. This
language is to provide for the continuation of the practice of allowing em-
ployees to be off for a part of the day on certain days of the week where such
practice is now in effect, but when required to work in case of emergency on
such days does not provide for additional compensation therefor. Claim is,
therefore, denied. IllCent-Clerks. Decision No. 461. CM&StP-Clerks.
Decisions, Nos. 468, 469, and 470.
Dispute with reference to change in practice of letting employees in certain
offices off for part of the day on Saturday. Decision-Case withdrawn by
employees and file closed. IHB-Clks. Decision No. 568.
Claim of certain clerical employees for pay for Saturdays not worked be-
tween certain period-no facts given. Case withdrawn by employees and
file closed. PM-Clks. Decision No. 945.
SCHEDULES. Incorporating rates and rules into.
Increases and rates granted by Labor Board to be incorporated and made
part of existing schedules. Sec. 6, Art. XIII. Decision No. 2.
Question as to whether Sec. 6, Art. XIII, Decision 2, requires the railroad
to compile a list of rates of pay and incorporate such list into the agreement.
SP-Clks. Decision No. 53.
Request that rate for "baggagemen handling express," covered by Sec-
tion (a), Article I, Sup. 16, be incorporated into Trainmen's schedule; road
contending that as there are no railroad employees filling such positions, rate
has no proper place in the schedule. Employees sustained. N&W-Tr. De-
cision No. 62.
Question (a) Has the System Federation representing Federated Shop
230
Crafts the right to negotiate agreement covering employees performing
mechanics' work and their helpers in the maintenance and repair of water
service equipment, coal chute machinery, scale work, etc., coming under the
jurisdiction of the B. & B. department; and (b) if so shall the rules govern-
ing such mechanics and helpers be included in the Federated Shop Crafts'
Agreement. Decision-(a) Evidence clearly indicated this question involved
jurisdiction between organizations which has since been decided and no further
action is therefore necessary on the part of the Board. (b) There being
no question as to System Federation representing a majority of each craft
or class the Board decides that agreement between shop crafts and carrier
shall, if said Federation so elects, cover and apply to all employees com-
prised in said class or craft employed in the maintenance of way and
signal and telegraph departments as well as maintenance of equipment de-
partment; provided this decision shall not prevent negotiation of such special
rules of said maintenance of way and signal and telegraph departments
as are necessary for the economical operation of such departments and pe-
culiarly applicable to nature of work and conditions surrounding it as dis-
tinguished from more highly specialized work of maintenance of equipment
department. M&StLRR-ShpCrf. Decision No. 357.
Question as to whether (1) system federation representing the Federated
Shop Crafts have the right to negotiate an agreement covering employees
performing mechanic's work and their helpers in the maintenance and repair
of water service equipment coming under the jurisdiction of the maintenance
of way department and (2) if so have the Federated Shop Crafts the
right to include rules governing such mechanics in the agreement they are
negotiating covering employees in the maintenance equipment department.
Decision No. 1. Yes, and No. 2 yes. CStPM&O-ShpCrf. Decision No.
525.
SCHEDULES. Revision of. See "Rules and Working Conditions—Requests
for."
SCOPE OF AGREEMENTS. See "Agreements."
SCOPE OF NATIONAL AGREEMENTS. See "National Agreements."
SEATS ON ENGINES. Request for. See "Engines-Request for seats
on.
SECTION FOREMEN. See "Foremen."
SECTION HOUSES.
Where for some years past road has allowed certain section houses built
and owned by company to be occupied by section foremen in its employ free
of charge, question as to right of road to make a monthly rental charge of
$5.00 for these section houses and make a deduction of said amount from wages
of section foremen for use and occupation of such quarters. Road sustained.
MK&T-MofW. Decision No. 94.
SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES OF EMPLOYEES. See
"Representation Rights."
SENIORITY.
1. Promotions
(a) Clerical Forces
(b) M. of W. Forces
(c) Express Employees
2. Displacement Rights
(a) M. of W. Forces
(b) Yard Forces
(c) Telegraph Forces
(d) Train & Engine Employees.
(e) Shop Forces.
(f) Clerical Forces.
(g) Express Employees.
(h) Signal Forces.
231
3. Seniority Standing
(a) Yard Forces
(b) Clerical Forces
(c) M. of W. Forces.
(d) Express Employees.
(e) Telegraph Forces.
(f) Shop Forces.
(g) Signal Forces.
4. Impairment of Accumulated Seniority as Measure of Discipline.
(a) Shop Crafts
5. Miscellaneous
(a) Clerical Forces.
(b) Shop Forces
(c) Express Employees
1. Promotions.
(a) Clerical Forces.
Claim that senior employee had sufficient fitness and ability and should
have been awarded bulletined position. Sustained. DL&W-Clerks; De-
cision No. 8. WM-Clerks; Decision No. 141.
Claim that senior employee making application for bulletined position
should be allowed to qualify for said position under Rule 10 of Clerks' Na-
tional Agreement. Sustained. WM-Clerks. Decision No. 44.
Dispute in connection with bulletined position not awarded to senior appli-
cant. Road sustained. NYNH&H-Clerks; Decision No. 46. RF&P-Clerks.
Decision No. 213.
Dispute in connection with bulletined position not being awarded to senior
applicant, contention being employee had sufficient fitness and ability to
warrant a trial as per Rule 10 of Clerks' National Agreement. Decision-
Position of employees sustained, but as party in question is now filling a
position of equal remuneration, importance and responsibility, it would not
be conducive to efficient and economical operation of the office to make a
change at this time. CCC&StL-Clerks. Decision No. 124.
Claim that position was not bulletined and not given to the senior em-
ployee at the time it became vacant, and that the senior man, who was
subsequently assigned to the position, should be reimbursed for the difference
in the salary of position held in service and the position in which the vacancy
occurred from the date of the vacancy to date of his assignment thereto. De-
cision-Claim sustained. CI&W-Clks. Decision No. 244.
Claim that senior employee (female) had sufficient fitness and ability and
should have been awarded bulletined position. Decision-Board decides em-
ployee had sufficient fitness and ability, but account position in question
requiring certain amount of overtime work, due to State Law prohibiting
female employees from working in excess of eight hours in any one day,
etc., position of carrier is sustained. SP-Clks. Decision No. 269.
Dispute in connection with bulletined position not. awarded to employee
holding seniority. Carrier contends that employee's experience has been
limited to work which would not qualify her for the position in question,
and further that as the position applied for occasionally requires working
overtime of more than one hour on certain days the state law prohibiting
the employment of women in excess of certain hours would prevent this
employee's assignment to said position. Decision-Basing decision on evidence
submitted, and provision of the state law, Board decides that position of car-
rier is sustained. UP-Clks. Decision No. 345.
Claim that senior applicant should have been awarded bulletined position.
Decision-This controversy covers a difference of opinion between the em-
ployees and the carrier as to whether the senior applicant had sufficient
fitness and ability to have justified a trial on the position in question, and
at the hearing before the Board it was agreed by the representatives of the
employees and carrier that the dispute should be subject to further investigation
232
and conference. Case is, therefore, removed from the docket and file
closed. NYC-Clks. Decision No. 392.
Claim that senior employee had sufficient fitness and ability and should
have been awarded bulletined position. Decision-Claim denied. SP-Clks.
Decision No. 458. StLSW-Cĺks. Decision No. 558. B&O-Clks. Decision
No. 705.
Dispute with reference to bulletined position of train and engine crew
caller not awarded to senior applicant. Decision—Board decides that the
senior applicant, who is out of service account of reduction in force, had
sufficient fitness and ability and if he desires to return to the service of
the carrier he shall be allowed the opportunity to qualify for the position
for which he applied in accordance with Rule 10 of the Clerks' National
Agreement, but shall not be paid for time he has been out of the carrier's
service. CM&SP-Clks. Decision No. 538.
Where position of claim clerk was abolished and new position of utility
clerk created, claim is made that such action was in violation of Rule
84 of the Clerks' National Agreement, and that certain senior employees
should be given the opportunity of qualifying for the position of utility
clerk, in accordance with the rules of the agreement. Decision-Evidence
shows that position of claim clerk was abolished and position of utility
clerk, with some added duties, was established in lieu thereof. The rate
of the position remained the same, and the new position was bulletined as
required by the rules of the agreement; therefore, the claim that Rule 84
was violated is not sustained. It is also shown that the senior employees
referred to did not have the requisite fitness and ability to qualify on the
position of utility clerk, and the claim of the employees that they be granted
a trial on the position is, therefore, denied. G&SI-Clks. Decision No. 855.
(b) Maintenance of Way Forces.
Where yard section foreman was temporarily appointed roadmaster on
another territory, holding such position for seventeen months, and then re-
turning to old position and displacing employee filling same, contention is made
that under the National Agreement such employee had lost his seniority
standing and had no right to his old position, and that employee displaced
should be reinstated and paid for all time lost. Denied. UP-MofW. De-
cision No. 58.
Dispute in connection with bulletined position not awarded to senior appli-
cant. Decision-Section (a), Article III, of the National Agreement, estab-
lishes seniority as the first consideration in selecting the successful applicant,
but there must be coupled with seniority, sufficient fitness and ability to qualify
on the position in the thirty days provided in Section (e), Article III. No
evidence was submitted that would substantiate claim of employees that other
employees senior in service were qualified to fill position in question, nor is there
any evidence to refute the carrier's statement that the employee who it is
claimed should have been assigned to the position, left the service of his own
accord and thereby automatically surrendered his seniority rights with the
bridge gang. Board, therefore, decides that the employee assigned by the car-
rier shall not be displaced from the position. NYC-MofW. Decision No. 251.
Dispute in regard to promotion of senior laborer to position of machinist
helper. Management takes the position that machinist helpers' positions are
governed by rules of the Shop Craft Agreement; that no machinist helper bid
for vacancy; that while in many cases where no helper applies for a vacant
position the senior man in labor class applying is given the place there is no
obligation under any agreement to assign the senior laborer, and that in this
case on account of the age of the senior laborer (55 years) he was not given
the assignment. Decision-Board does not construe that the management
was obligated under the provisions of the then existing agreement to promote
the senior laborer to the position of helper and claim of the employees is,
therefore, denied. B&M-KofL. Decision No. 549.
(c) Express Employees.
Where two employees who were out of service account reduction in force
filed application for position newly created in another seniority district and
233
▸
placed on bulletin in accordance with rules and to which a junior employee
from another point was assigned, claim is made that the senior applicant should
have been given preference to the position. Carrier contends that only ob-
ligation on their part with respect to the appointment was to give employees
preference over non-employees and this requirement was fulfilled. Decision-
The employees admit that none of the employees referred to in the dispute held
seniority rights in the seniority district in which the position in question was
posted. The employee assigned to the position had previously held a position
in the carrier's service at another station which was abolished upon estab-
lishment of the district accounting bureau at the point in question. Claim
of employees is, therefore, denied. ARECo-Clks. Decision No. 362.
Claim of certain telephone switchboard operator for right to a 30-day trial
in position of Wahl operator. Decision-It appears from the evidence before
the Board that this employee was not awarded the position of Wahl operator.
but was given an opportunity to demonstrate her ability and fitness for same
and after a period of 15 days it was decided she did not have the requisite
fitness and ability to justify her assignment to the position. Claim of em-
ployees is, therefore, denied. ARE-Cĺks. Decision No. 677.
Claim of certain truck driver, whose position was abolished, for right to
exercise his seniority over employee holding position as bill clerk. Applica-
tion of this employee was denied on ground that he did not have sufficient fit-
ness and ability to qualify for the position. Decision-Claim of employees
denied. ARECo-Clks. Decision No. 683.
Dispute with reference to certain employee being relieved from service in
connection with reduction of force and employees with less seniority retained.
Carrier takes the position that employee in question was a minor and that
when it became necessary to reduce the force there was no position in the ser-
vice in which, under the rules of the Carrier, a minor could be employed and
further that under the rules of the agreement the exercise of seniority in the
reduction of force is subject to fitness and ability. Decision-Position of
carrier is sustained. ARE-Clks. Decision No. 687.
Claim of certain employee for position of messenger on trains operated
between certain point, contention being that employee in question was the
senior applicant and should have been assigned to the run. Decision-Facts
before the Board show that neither of the applicants for this run had any
seniority in road service, but the employee assigned had had approximately 8
years previous experience in road service in the territory in which this run is
located, and there was no evidence to show that any order, rule or agreement
was violated in the action taken by the carrier in this case, and claim
of employees, is therefore, denied. ARECo-Clks. Decision No. 699.
Dispute with reference to bulletined position not awarded to senior employee.
Decision-Position involved in this dispute was abolished within a few months
after it was assigned to the successful applicant, therefore there is nothing
for the Board to decide and the case is removed from the docket and the file
closed. ARE-Clks. Decision No. 702.
2. Displacement Rights.
(a) Maintenance of Way Forces.
Where yard section foreman was temporarily appointed roadmaster on
another territory, holding such position for seventeen months, and then re-
turning to old position and displacing employee filling same, contention is made
that under the National Agreement such employee lost his seniority standing
and had no right to his old position, and that employee displaced should be
reinstated and paid for all time lost. Denied. UP-MofW. Decision No. 58.
Question as to right of B. & B. foreman promoted to general foreman, upon
his position of general foreman being abolished, to return to his former po-
sition of B. & B. foreman displacing employee assigned to said position.
Carrier holds that when said employee was promoted to general foreman it
was agreed that he would not thereby lose his seniority rights and that in event
of force reduction he would be entitled to return to his former position or to
any other position to which his seniority entitled him. Decision-Board de-
cides (a) appointment to position of general foreman did not constitute tem-
•
234
porary appointment; (b) continuity of employees service with carrier was not
disturbed by said appointment; (c) employee is entitled to displace the junior
B. & B. foreman in point of service as provided for in Section (e), Article III
of the National Agreement; (d) employee filling position formerly held by
general foreman is entitled to retain said position provided he is not the
junior B. & B. foreman on the seniority district. T&BV-MofW. Decision
No. 339.
Where position of night derrick engineer was abolished and employee filling
said position assigned as laborer, (position he formerly occupied), claim is
made that under Section (a), Article III of National Agreement said em-
ployee should be permitted to displace a junior_day derrick engineer at same
point. Decision-Claim denied. SP-MofW. Decision No. 340.
Question as to right of pumper filling second shift at certain point to
exercise his seniority rights to first shift position when the second shift po-
sition was abolished. This pumper, although holding seniority over the first
trick man was denied the right to displace first trick pumper, but not denied
the right to displace pumper with the least seniority rights in the seniority dis-
trict in question. Subsequently, in disposing of this grievance the management
reached agreement with the organization that the last sentence of Section (e),
Article II of the National Maintenance of Way Agreement would apply to
pumpers, it being the understanding that said agreement would establish a pre-
cedent for handling future cases, and carrier, declined to honor claim for
actual wage loss to the second trick pumper from the time his trick was cut
off until he was placed upon the first trick. Employees are now contending
that under Section (c-2) of Article II of the agreement that this pumper
should have been placed on the first trick position and therefore, claim that
he is entitled to time lost. Decision-Claim denied. M&W-MofW. De-
cision No. 521.
Question as to seniority rights of certain track laborers in service less
than six months, who were laid off account reduction in force and were not
allowed to displace other laborers junior to them in the service. Carrier takes
the position that under Section (h), Article II of the National Maintenance
of Way Agreement these laborers having been in the service less than six
months were not under the provisions of the agreement, nor entitled to any
seniority rights, and it was entirely within its rights in displacing these la-
borers when reducing its force. Employees contend that their understanding
of section (h) is that the names of employees will not appear on the roster
until six months service but that does not affect their seniority rights in the
service and that any employees in service should receive their seniority rights
in accordance with section (d-1), Article II of the agreement. Decision-
While the Board feels that the principles of seniority should be adhered to as
closely as possible when reducing forces it does not construe the provisions of
the Agreement as making it compulsory on the carrier to regard seniority of
employees in question until they have been in the service six months and claim
of employees is, therefore, denied. BR&P-MofW. Decision No. 523.
Question as to seniority rights of employee formerly employed as car-
penter who was laid off account reduction in force when younger men in
the service were retained for regular roustabout work of the B. & B. gang.
Carrier states this employee was not retained because it was felt that he
was unable to safely and efficiently perform this class of work and that
employment of this man in such a gang would endanger himself and the
rest of the gang as he was very clumsy in the handling of materials and was
in general incapable, and takes the position that they have the right under
the seniority provisions of the agreement to determine whether or not an
employee is capable of performing the work. Decision-Board decides that
carrier did not violate the meaning and intent of the agreement in this case.
However, it recommends that when the forces are increased this party be
reemployed in some line of work that he may be capable of performing.
LV-MofW. Decision 799.
Question as to seniority rights of certain coal chute employees to positions
in and around shops and roundhouses. For the purpose of reducing ex-
penses the carrier dispensed with certain employees connected with the opera-
235
tion of coal chutes and transferred such work to the mechanical department.
In taking this action employees working at coal chutes were laid off and the
work performed by them was distributed among the mechanical department
employees at certain point. The positions of the coal chute employees
were not filled nor was the force in the mechanical department increased
to take care of this work when it was transferred. This arrangement re-
sulted in the laying off of several employees at the coal chutes who held
longer service records than the men in the mechanical department to whom
their work was transferred and the employees are claiming that these coal
chute employees should have been privileged to exercise their seniority and
to have displaced younger employees in the mechanical department. Carrier
takes position that it was justified in making the arrangement outlined
and further that it could not be expected that the carrier would dismiss
men in the mechanical department doing more or less semi-skilled work
to make place for men whose duties were that of common laborers. De-
cision-While evidence does not justify the charge that the seniority rules
were violated by the carrier it is quite clear that the seniority rules were
intended to protect senior men when a change was made that affected their
seniority and retention in the service. Board decides, therefore, that im-
mediately upon receipt of this decision conferences shall be held between the
duly authorized representatives of the carrier and the employees directly
interested and where it is found that an employee senior in point of service.
is reasonably capable of performing the work such senior employee shall
displace a junior employee. Request for pay for time lost is denied, but
shall not be construed to apply to any dispute for time lost that may arise
from failure to fairly apply this decision. D&H-MofW. Decision No. 780.
Question as to right of section foreman, promoted to assistant road-
master, upon his position as assistant roadmaster being abolished, to return
to his former position of section foreman. Decision-On evidence submitted,
the Board decides: (a) That the appointment of this section foreman to
assistant roadmaster did not constitute a temporary appointment; (b) that
the continuity of his service with the carrier was not disturbed by said
appointment; (c) that this employee, as a result of being demoted, is en-
titled to a position as section foreman by displacing the junior (in point of
service) section foreman as provided in Section (e), Article II of agreement,
in effect at time of such demotion; (d) that the employee, filling the position
formerly held by this section foreman, is entitled to retain said position,
provided he is not the junior section foreman on the seniority district,
as provided in Section (e), Article II of the agreement. MC-MofW. De-
cision No. 804.
Claim of certain carpenters for reinstatement without loss of seniority,
and pay for time lost, while held out of service and men younger in the service
retained, employees contending that the laying off of these men was contrary
to the meaning and intent of Section (c-2), Article II of the agreement which
provides that when a force is reduced, the senior men in the subdepartment
De-
on the seniority district, capable of doing the work shall be retained.
cision-Board recognizes that the language of the rule referred to leaves
the matter largely in the hands of the carrier to determine whether or not
an employee is capable of doing the work. The Board also recognizes—and
without any reflection as to the motive or future intention of any carrier
or organization-that unless some restriction is placed upon that portion of the
rule, reading "capable of doing the work" it would be subject to application
that would minimize, if not entirely destroy, the principle of seniority. The
Board is, therefore, of opinion that when the reduction in forces, such as
outlined in this decision, becomes necessary, and when the question as to
the capabilities of employees is involved, that careful consideration should
be given to qualifications, and if practicable, conference held between the
representatives of the respective parties in an effort to arrive at a mutual
understanding prior to such reduction in force. Claim for reinstatement
of the men involved in this particular dispute is denied. DL&W-MofW.
Decision No. 807.
236
(b) Yard Forces.
Where schedule contains rule providing that when a yard foreman refuses
to take a crew when he stands for it or gives up a crew and goes back to
helping, he forfeits his standing as foreman and must go behind all promoted
men, but not interfering with his seniority as a helper; request is made for
new rule that where a foreman forfeits seniority as referred to in above rule,
he may displace any junior helper. Denied Board deciding existing rule
and practice just and reasonable. N&W-Tr. Decision No. 65.
(c) Telegraph Forces.
Question as to right of superintendent, promoted from the telegraph ranks,
to displace an agent junior in the service. Telegraphers contend there is no
rule in their schedule which permits of the retention of seniority in the sta-
tion and telegraph service by employees promoted or appointed to positions
outside of the scope of the agreement; that such arrangement can only be
made by special agreement between representatives of the employees and the
carrier; that the name of the superintendent in question has never appeared
upon any of the seniority lists of employees in station and telegraph service,
and, furthermore, that the rules of the current agreement require that all
vacant positions shall be bulletined for the bid of employee eligible to apply
for same and that the position in question was not then vacant. Carrier
states that when the employee in question accepted the promotion to the
official position in 1906, he was guaranteed the retention of his seniority
rights in the station and telegraph service, and contends that as this guarantee
was given by a duly authorized officer of the carrier and accepted in good
faith this employee should not now be required to suffer the loss of his
seniority through failure to include his name on the seniority list. Decision-
Position of employees sustained. CGW--Telgrs. Decision No. 221.
Dispute with reference to train dispatchers, whose positions were abolished,
to displace employees in telegraph service. Employees concede that agree-
ment provides for employees promoted from telegraph service to dispatchers'
positions retaining their seniority in the telegraph service, but contend that
it does not give such employees, who return to the telegraph service, the
right to displace regularly assigned employees in that service. Decision-
Basing this decision upon the evidence before it and the Board's construction
of the rules of the agreement involved, Board decides that position of
carrier is sustained. NYC-Tel. Decision No. 619. WRR-Tel. Decision
No. 620.
Request that train dispatcher, whose position was abolished, be permitted
to displace night-chief-dispatcher. Decision-Request denied. CM&StP-
ATDA. Decision No. 623.
Request that train dispatcher, who was laid off account reduction in force,
be permitted to exercise his seniority to position in dispatcher's office at
the point employed and reimbursed for monetary loss sustained since date
laid off. Decision-It appears that the employees' contentions are based
upon contingency which has not occurred. Therefore, there is nothing for
the Board to decide so far as this claim is concerned and case is, therefore,
removed from the docket and file closed. CM&StP.-ATDA. Decision
No. 639.
Dispute with reference to right of certain train dispatcher to return to
position of train dispatcher on division on which he was temporarily out
of the service. This employee who was working as an extra dispatcher
on a certain division was transferred to another division for a certain period.
for temporary relief work, at the end of which period he was returned to
his own division with seniority rights unimpaired. Employees contend that
by the transfer of this dispatcher to another division for relief work he for-
feited his seniority rights as a dispatcher on his home division. Decision-
Claim of employees denied. CRI&P-ATDA. Decision No. 781.
Question as to whether regular dispatchers, promoted from the ranks of
telegraphers, shall be permitted to displace regularly assigned telegraphers
at a certain office. Case withdrawn by interested parties and file closed.
AT&SF-Tel. Decision No. 867.
237
(d) Train and Engine Employees.
Claim of fireman for time account refusal to permit him to displace an
engineer on a hostling position. Parties at interest agreed upon settlement
and withdrew case from Board. OWRR&N-E&F. Decision No. 317.
(e) Shop Forces.
Where employee filling second trick (3 p. m. to 11 p. m.) position as tender
repairmen was laid off account reduction in force, and exercised his seniority
by accepting first trick (7 a. m. to 3:15 p. m.) position in car department,
question as to whether said employee is entitled to overtime rates for the
first shift worked in the car department under rule 13 of the National Agree-
ment. Decision-rule in question makes no distinction as to whether or not
employee is transferred at instance of carrier or of his own accord. Board,
therefore, decides that over time in accordance with rule should be allowed
for the first shift of the change. CCC&StL-ShpCrf. Decision No. 353.
Question as to whether certain employee formerly employed as car inspector
and later demoted to car repairer shall be reinstated to the position of inspector
or whether this employee who subsequent to his demotion to car repairer was
laid off account reduction in force shall be reinstated to position of car re-
pairer and paid for time lost. Decision-Claim for reinstatement as car in-
spector is denied. However, seniority accumulated by this employee as car
inspector should have been considered when reducing the force and as in ac-
cordance with seniority rules he was not the youngest man in the service at
the time of the reduction, he should be reinstated to position of car repairer
with seniority rights unimpaired and paid for time lost as car repairer since
date of his removal from the service less any amount he may have earned in
other employment during such period. Ann Arbor RR-AFofRRW. De-
cision No. 587.
Dispute in regard to certain sheet metal workers who held seniority over
certain men younger in the service being laid off when force was reduced.
Employees contend that there was only one seniority roster for sheet metal
workers at the point in question and that this employee held seniority over
certain men who were retained; that his experience in certain classes of sheet
metal work qualified him for the positions filled by. the younger men retained
and that he should at least have been given a fair trial to determine whether
or not he was qualified. Carrier takes position that work performed by this
employee has been that of tinsmith and that his experience in pipe fitting did
not warrant the displacement of employees experienced in that line of work.
Decision-It is agreed that the employee in question is classified and rated in
accordance with the Shop Crafts Agreement that but one seniority roster
was kept of sheet metal workers at the point in question and that this employee
held seniority over certain men who were retained. Therefore, the Board de-
cides that in view of the fact that no distinction was made in the Shop Crafts
Agreement between the different classes of sheet metal workers' work this
employee was entitled to a trial in one of the positions held by junior men
and shall be paid for the period out of service, less any amount he may have
earned in other employement. NYC-ShpCrf. Decision No. 768.
Dispute in regard to assignment of men classified as machinist helpers to
position of sheet metal worker helpers instead of assigning laborers older in
the service. Carrier takes position that under agreement there is no obliga-
tion to give laborers positions as helpers although it has been the practice to do
so when no helpers have applied for new positions or vacancies; and further
that an understanding had been reached with the Federated Shop Crafts that
instead of going outside and hiring sheet metal worker's helpers where there.
were machinist helpers doing sheet metal workers' helpers' work they would
reclassify them and make them sheet metal workers' helpers in order to pre-
serve their positions as helpers. Decision-Board cannot find where the car-
rier violated the provisions of any rules or agreement in handling the matter
as above outlined and claim of employees is, therefore, denied. B&M-KofL.
Decision No. 770.
Question as to seniority of certain employee who bid for and accepted
temporary position of car inspector but who refused to bid on position when
238
advertised as permanent, and returned to his former position when he was told
that he lost his seniority at the shops when he took the temporary position.
Decision—Evidence indicates that position of car inspector was advertised as
"temporary" and it is, therefore, reasonable to assume that this employee ac-
cepted position with that understanding. Board does not feel, therefore, that
this employee should have been denied his seniority and decides that he shall
be restored to his standing at the shops and compensated to extent that he
has suffered a wage loss account of denial of such seniority, deducting any
amount he may have earned in other employment. B&M-AFofRRW. De-
cision No. 802.
Claim of carpenter who was laid off account reduction in force for rein-
statement in accordance with his alleged seniority. Decision-At oral hearing
conducted in connection with this dispute, representatives of employees stated
they would again handle the matter with the carrier in an effort to reach a
satisfactory agreement. Docket is, therefore, closed without prejudice to
either party to again bring the matter to the attention of the Board in event
a settlement is not effected. PS-AFofRRW. Decision No. 803.
Question as to seniority of certain machinist who formerly occupied a su-
pervisory position. No facts given. Case withdrawn and file closed. N&W
-ShpCrf. Decision No. 889.
Question as to seniority rights of certain foreman of car inspectors
whose position was abolished and who was assigned as car inspector on first
trick, thereby displacing the junior man thereon. Employees contend that
this employee should have been assigned to whatever position was open on his
craft or displace the junior mechanic on the seniority roster of "Other car-
men,"
as set out in Rule 31 of the Shopcrafts' Agreement. Decision-Board
decides that the foreman in question is entitled to the continuity of his
seniority, dating from the time he entered the service, but that when his
position was abolished the only seniority rights he could have exercised
would have been to take any vacant position to which his seniority entitled
him, or in the event of there being no vacancies, he could displace the junior
man of his craft and class, in accordance with the subdivision set out in
Rule 31. If questions arise as to the inability of employees whose positions
are abolished to perform certain classes of work, a conference should be
held between the representatives of the interested parties in an effort to
arrive at a mutual understanding regarding the position to which the em-
ployee involved should be assigned. Rule 23 of the agreement should also
be given proper consideration if practicable. If any change is made in
this employee assignment, there shall be no monetary adjustment account of
issuance of this decision. HV-ShpCrf. Decision No. 895.
(f) Clerical Forces.
Where employee filling position of baggage and mail handler was assigned
to position of apron tender in place of regular employee who was absent
account sickness and continued on said position for more than one year, when
he was displaced by apron tender senior in the service whose position was abol-
ished account reduction in force, claim is made that as the employee in ques-
tion satisfactorily filled position of apron tender for a period of 14 months he
should have been permitted to exercise his seniority over an apron tender junior
to himself when displaced by the senior apron tender, and request is made that
he be restored to the position of apron tender and paid the rate thereof from
date he was so displaced. Carrier holds that employee referred to was never
formerly assigned to the position of apron tender and that there is no rule
in the clerks' agreement under which he is entitled to exercise his seniority to
displace a junior employee. Decision-Position of employees is sustained. SP
Co-Clks. Decision No. 372.
Question as to whether clerk in freight station at certain point, whose po-
sition was abolished, should be permitted to exercise seniority rights in the
office of superintendent of transportation at the same point. This privilege
was denied on the ground that clerk in question did not hold seniority in that
department while the employees contend that these two offices are in the same.
seniority district. Decision-Board decides that the two offices in question are
239
not within the same seniority district as contemplated by section (b), Article
XII of Supplement 7 to G. O. 27, and claim is therefore denied. GandSI-
Clks. Decision No. 460.
Claim of crew caller in yard master's office, whose position was abolished,
for right to exercise his seniority to displace crew caller in motive power de-
partment at same point. Employees contend that action of carrier in abolish-
ing the position of crew caller in the yardmaster's office constituted a consolida-
tion of departments as referred to in rule 26 of the Clerks' National Agree-
ment and that the crew caller in question should be permitted to exercise his
seniority rights over junior employees in accordance with this rule. Carrier
states that work attached to the positions of crew callers in the yardmaster's
office decreased sufficient to permit abolishing the positions and assigning the
work to the engine crew callers in the motive power department, which action
it claims constituted a reduction of force under rules 21 and 27 of the National
Agreement which were strictly adhered to in making the change. Decision-
Claim of employees denied. StLSW-Clks. Decision No. 462.
Claim that clerk in chief dispatcher's office, whose position was abolished,
should be permitted to exercise his seniority rights in local freight office at
same point. Employees contend that clerk in question was carried on the
same seniority roster as clerks in local freight office and should have been
permitted to exercise his seniority in that office, while the carrier takes the
position that he was not in the same seniority district and not entitled to dis-
place employee younger in the service at the local freight office. Decision—
Under the provisions of Section (b), Article XII of Supplement 7 to G. O.
27, the two offices referred to are within the same department of the super-
intendent's division on which this clerk was employed and the Board, there-
fore, decides that he should be permitted to exercise his seniority rights to any
position within the scope of the National Agreement in the local freight office
in accordance with rules 27 and 31 of the Agreement. G&SI-Clks. Decision
No. 463.
Dispute regarding right of clerk to exercise her seniority rights in connec-
tion with abolishment of her position in the locai freight office at certain point.
Decision-Case withdrawn by employees and file closed. G&SI-Clks. De-
cision No. 464.
Where yard clerk, whose position was abolished January 10, 1921,
applied for right to exercise his seniority to position of assistant timekeeper.
but was not assigned thereto until January 21, 1921, claim is made for
compensation for time lost in the interim. Carrier states that position of as-
sistant timekeeper required a familiarity with instructions governing the
application of rates of pay and a knowledge of rules covering working
conditions; that at the time this employee, who had had no previous experi-
ence in this particular work, applied for the position certain monthly
reports were in course of preparation, and it did not consider that he had
sufficient fitness and ability to assume the duties of the position at that
time and that as soon as these reports were completed he was assigned
to said position. Decision-Evidence before the Board shows that the em-
ployee in question had the requisite seniority, fitness and ability to satis-
factorily perform the duties of assistant timekeeper and he is, therefore,
entitled to the rate of the position for the period January 11 to 20, inclusive.
CM&StP-Clks. Decision No. 475.
Claim of telephone operator, whose position was abolished, for right to
exercise her seniority to position on the clerical seniority roster at point
employed. Under a decision of Railway Board of Adjustment No. 3 of
the U. S. Railroad Administration, the position of telephone operator was
classified as a clerical position from September 1, 1918, to November 6,
1919, after which date this employee was relieved of all clerical work and
devoted her entire time to the operation of the switchboard. Employees
claim that as the decision of Board No. 3 established her classification
as a clerk from September 1, 1918, that her seniority as clerk should accrue
from that date. Carrier states--and it is not denied by employees-that
position held by this employee was not included on the clerks' seniority
roster which has been duly posted and revised in accordance with the pro-
240
vision of the Clerks' National Agreement since the effective date thereof
and that employees have made no protest in regard to it not being shown
thereon. Decision-Claim of employees is denied. N&W-Clks.
No. 534.
Decision
Request for reinstatement of clerk to any position in carrier's service
to which her seniority rights entitle her with. seniority unimpaired and pay
for period it is claimed she was held out of service pending investigation.
As a result of the addition of other duties to position of file clerk this
employee was displaced, and sought to exercise her seniority to displace
a junior employee in the service. This request was refused because she
would not agree to remain in the position for a period sufficient in the
judgment of the management to justify awarding her the position. Case
was taken up by committee and investigation requested under Rule 32 of the
Clerks' National Agreement. Investigation was held at which it was de-
veloped, to the satisfaction of the employees' representative, that this clerk
was not qualified to hold the file clerk's position with the added duties.
Subsequent to the investigation the carrier agreed to permit her to retain
her seniority and apply for any bulletined position. Employees now
quest that this clerk be paid for time held out of service prior to date of investi-
gation. Decision-Board decides that request for pay for time lost is
denied. However, if said employee desires to return to the carrier's service
she shall be permitted to retain her seniority unimpaired, and be assigned
to the first bulletined position to which her seniority entitles her. StLSF-
Clks. Decision No. 576.
re-
Claim of clerk for position of bill clerk, and reimbursement for time lost
since date she was laid off account reduction in force, while several
employees holding less seniority were retained in the service. Decision-
Evidence indicates that this employee had sufficient fitness and ability to
fill the position of bill clerk and should have been assigned to same when
released from service on account of reduction in force. Board, therefore,
decides that she shall be reinstated to said position with seniority rights
unimpaired and paid for all time lost since date she was laid off less any
amount she may have earned at other employment. PM-Clks. Decision
No. 577.
Question as to right of clerk in the East Providence enginehouse, whose
position was abolished, to exercise his seniority at the Providence engine-
house which right was denied by carrier on the ground that these two
enginehouses were not in the same seniority district. Decision-Board decides
that this clerk shall be permitted to exercise his seniority to any position
within the scope of the Clerks' National Agreement in the mechanical de-
partment on the Providence Division in accordance with the rules of said
agreement and shall be reimbursed for time lost account being refused the
right to do so when his position was abolished, less any amount he may
have earned at other employment since date he was laid off. NYNH&H-
Clks. Decision No. 578.
Claim of certain clerks for right to exercise seniority in connection
with reduction of force. Case withdrawn by employees and file closed.
MichCent-Clks. Decision No. 657. ACL-Clks. Decision No. 660.
Claim of clerk, whose position was abolished, for right to exercise
his seniority to another position, which right was denied by carrier on the
ground that he did not have the requisite fitness and ability to qualify
on the position desired. Decision-Claim of employees denied. LV-Clks.
Decision No. 733.
Claim of certain employee, whose position was abolished, for right to
exercise his seniority to position of call boy, which right was denied by
carrier on the ground that he did not possess sufficient fitness and ability
to qualify for said position. Decision-Board decides that employee in
question did have sufficient fitness and ability to justify his assignment to
the position of call boy, and that he shall, therefore, be assigned to said
position and reimbursed for all monetary loss sustained since the date he
made application therefor less any amount earned in other employment
since that date. LV-Clks. Decision No. 735.
241
Claim of clerk, who was laid off account temporary reduction of force,
for right to exercise her seniority to displace an extra clerk employed
on a so-called floating force engaged in inventory work, which right was
denied. Decision-Evidence before the Board shows that the extra, or
floating force, referred to was carried on the payroll of the general store-
keeper and was not within the seniority district in which the employee re-
ferred to could exercise seniority, and claim of employees is, therefore,
denied. N&W-Clks. Decision No. 759.
Dispute as to right of certain employee to exercise his seniority to posi-
tion of train earnings clerk-no facts stated. Case withdrawn by employees
and file closed. SP-Clks. Decision No. 820.
Claim of comptometer operator whose position was abolished for right to
exercise her seniority to position of time keeper, which right was denied on the
ground that she was not qualified for said position. Decision-Position of
carrier sustained. MK&T-Clks. Decision No. 836.
Claim of clerk for right to exercise his seniority-No facts given. Case
withdrawn by employees and file closed. G&SI-Clks. Decision No. 844.
CRI&P-Clks. Decision No. 871.
Dispute regarding right of certain clerk to exercise his seniority in
connection with reduction of force. No facts given. Case withdrawn by
employees and file closed. D&W-Clks. Decision No. 901.
Dispute regarding seniority rights of two employees who entered the
service of the carrier at the same point at the regular starting time on the
same day, and whose pay commenced at the same time. When the force
was reduced in the office in which the employees in question were employed,
one of the employees was permitted to displace the other. Employees con-
tend that as the pay of both employees started at the same time, their
seniority is the same, and that under such circumstances one employee can
not displace the other employee. Carrier states that while it is true
that both of these employees entered the service on the same day, and that
their pay started at the same time, arrangements had been made for the
employment of one of them two weeks in advance of the time she started to
work and two weeks in advance of the receipt of the other party's appli-
cation for the position. Decision Since the two employees involved in
this dispute entered the service on the same day and at the same time and
no mutual understanding was had between the carrier and the employees, the
Board decides that the carrier was within its right in designating which
employee should be considered the senior, when it became necessary to do
so. Position of carrier is, therefore, sustained. LV-Clks. Decision No. 918.
Question as to application of Rules 21 and 27 of the Clerks' National
Agreement in connection with abolishing position of car service clerk at
certain point-no facts given. Case withdrawn by employees and file closed.
LV-Clks. Decision No. 936.
(g) Express Employees.
Dispute with reference to express messengers on certain train exercising
their seniority over certain junior employees. Decision-Case withdrawn by
employees and file closed. ARECo-Cĺks. Decision No. 627.
Claim of certain employee for right to exercise his seniority rights to po-
sition of express messenger on trains operating between certain points. Car-
rier denied request for reason that this applicant did not reside at the home.
terminal of the run in question, taking the position that owing to the uncer-
tainty of train service it is necessary to call on train employees to do extra ser-
vice and that express messengers who elect to reside at a distance from the ter-
minal of their runs and who are not available for such extra service are not
desired on important runs. This employee was advised that he would be as-
signed to the run if he would maintain residence at the home terminal thereof,
but this he declined to do. Decision-Request of employees denied. ARECo-
Clks. Decision No. 661.
Dispute concerning right of certain clerical employees, whose positions
were abolished, to exercise their seniority to other positions held by junior
employees. Decision-At the hearing conducted in this case it was found that
242
the evidence was not sufficiently clear for the Board to render a decision there-
on. Case is, therefore, returned to parties at interest and file closed. ARE
Co-Clks. Decision No. 664.
Claim of certain truck driver, whose position was abolished, for right to
exercise his seniority over employee holding position as bill clerk. Application
of this employee was denied on ground that he did not have sufficient fitness
and ability to qualify for the position. Decision-Claim of employees denied.
ARECo-Clks. Decision No. 683.
Dispute with reference to certain employee being relieved from service
in connection with reduction of force and employees with less seniority retained.
Carrier takes the position that employee in question was a minor and that when
it became necessary to reduce the force there was no position in the service
in which, under the rules of the carrier, a minor could be employed and further
that under the rules of the agreement the exercise of seniority in the reduc-
tion of force is subject to fitness and ability. Decision-Position of carrier
is sustained. ARE-Clks. Decision No. 687.
Dispute with reference to senior employee laid off account reduction in
force, and other employees with less seniority being retained in service. Car-
rier states that the employee in question was relieved from the service for the
reason that he was a minor, and there was no position at the point in ques-
tion, in which, under the carrier's rules, a minor could be employed. Decision-
Claim of employees denied. ARE-Clks. Decision No. 727.
Claim of clerk for right to exercise his seniority to position held by junior
employee. Case withdrawn by employees and file closed. ARE-Clks. De-
cision No. 842.
Claim of messenger, whose position was abolished, for time lost in con-
nection with the exercise of his seniority rights over junior employee. Em-
ployees state that this employee made a special trip to the superintendent's
office for the purpose of having an understanding and being allowed to exer-
cise his seniority rights over employees younger in the service; that the
superintendent was not in the office and the chief clerk did not have authority
to allow him to exercise his seniority over junior employees and he was
compelled to lose one trip and contend, therefore, that inasmuch as this
employee endeavored to the full extent of his ability to adjust the matter
and found that no one was authorized by the superintendent to act in the
matter he should be paid for the loss in wages he was compelled to sustain.
Decision-Evidence before the Board indicates that the employee in ques-
tion was available for service on the trip for which claim is presented and
that his loss in compensation was sustained through no fault of his own;
therefore, the Board decides that he shall be reimbursed for the trip lost in
the exercise of seniority on the day in question. ARE-Clks. Decision No.
934.
(h) Signal Forces.
Question as to right of signal maintainer, promoted to position of signal
supervisor, upon position of signal supervisor being abolished to return to his
former position, displacing employee assigned thereto. Carrier contends that
when this employee was promoted to position of signal maintainer it was un-
derstood that he would have the right to return to his former position in event
the position of signal supervisor was abolished. Decision-(a) Board decides.
that appointment of this employee to position of signal supervisor did not
constitute a temporary appointment; (b) continuity of employees service with
the carrier was not disturbed by said employment; (c) that this employee as a
result of being demoted is entitled to a position of signal maintainer by dis-
placing the signal maintainer having the least seniority rights on the seniority
district as per Section 8, Article IV of the agreement; (d) employee filling
position formerly held by this signal supervisor is entitled to retain said po-
sition provided he is not the junior signal maintainer on the seniority district.
CB&Q-Sig. Decision No. 801.
243
3. Seniority Standing.
(a) Yard Forces.
Where, in 1916 when forces were reduced, extra yard brakeman accepted
position as switchtender with understanding that he would retain seniority
rights as yard brakeman and where eleven months later he resumed duty
as yard brakeman with seniority as of date of employment in that capac-
ity, and no question raised at that time; claim is now made that seniority
should only date from date of reentering service as yard brakeman. Board
without jurisdiction, matter complained of having occurred before passage
of Transportation Act. N&W-Trainmen. Decision No. 72.
(b) Clerical Forces.
Where, on May 3, 1920, agreement was reached establishing certain
seniority districts and "excepted positions," question as to proper seniority
date of clerk who has been continuously employed on one of the specified
seniority districts since August, 1907, holding positions classified as "personal
office force" from that date until June, 1917, since which date he has been
filling a non-excepted position. Employees contend seniority should only date
from June, 1917, when he was appointed to the non-excepted position, while
road holds seniority should date from August, 1907, when he entered service
on his present seniority district. Decision-Rule 29 of Clerks' National Agree-
ment is not retroactive in its aspect; therefore contention of carrier is sus-
tained. MP-Clks. Decision No. 132.
Where during Federal control the terminal facilities at certain point were
unified and operated under one management with the transfer of certain em-
ployees from the various carriers involved, and at the end of Federal control
the Unification Agreement as terminated and each carrier concerned arranged
to take back into its service such employees as had been transferred, claim is
made by an employee who entered the service of the Terminal Association
sometime after the Unification Agreement went into effect, for position in the
service of the carrier defendant with seniority rights from date of his employ-
ment with the Terminal Association. Decision-Evidence shows that this party
was not an employee of the carrier involved prior to his employment by the
Terminal Association, but entered the service of the association after it was
organized; therefore, when the Terminal Association passed out of existence
there was no obligation on the part of this carrier to give the employe in ques-
tion a position in its service, and claim is denied. SP-Clks. Decision No.
243.
Question as to whether clerk in freight station at certain point, whose po-
sition was abolished, should be permitted to exercise seniority rights in the
office of superintendent of transportation at the same point. This privilege
was denied on the ground that clerk in question did not hold seniority in that
department while the employees contend that these two offices are in the same
seniority district. Decision-Board decides that the two offices in question are
not within the same seniority district as contemplated by Section (b), Article
XII of Supplement 7 to G. O. 27, and claim is therefore denied. G&SI-Clks.
Decision No. 460.
Claim of crew caller in yard master's office, whose position was abolished, for
right to exercise his seniority to displace crew caller in motive power depart-
ment at same point. Employees contend that action of carrier in abolishing
the position of crew caller in the yardmaster's office constituted a consolida-
tion of departments as referred to in rule 26 of the Clerks' National Agree-
ment and that the crew caller in question should be permitted to exercise his
seniority rights over junior employees in accordance with this rule. Carrier
states that work attached to the positions of crew caller in the yardmaster's
office decreased sufficient to permit abolishing the positions and assigning the
work to the engine crew callers in the motive power department, which action
it claims constituted a reduction of force under rules 21 and 27 of the National
Agreement which were strictly adhered to in making the change. Decision-
Claim of employees denied. StLSW-Clks. Decision No. 462.
Claim that clerk in general dispatcher's office, whose position was abolished,
244
should be permitted to exercise his seniority rights in local "freight office at same
point. Employees contend that clerk in question was carried on the same
seniority roster as clerks in local freight office and should have been permitted
to exercise his seniority in that office, while the carrier takes the position that
he was not in the same seniority district and not entitled to displace employee
younger in the service at the local freight office. Decision-Under the pro-
visions of Section (b), Article XII of Supplement 7 to G O. 27, the two
offices referred to are within the same department of the superintendent's divi-
sion on which this clerk was employed and the Board, therefore, decides that
he should be permitted to exercise his seniority rights to any position within
the scope of the National Agreement in the local freight office in accordance
with rules 27 and 31 of the agreement. G&SI-Clks. Decision No. 463.
Dispute regarding right of clerk to exercise her seniority rights in connec-
tion with abolishment of her position in the local freight office at certain point.
Decision-Case withdrawn by employees and file closed. G&SI-Clks. De-
cision No. 464.
Question as to proper seniority date of employee in superintendent's
office, who prior to issuance of Supplement 7 to G. O. 27, was classified
as a messenger and after effective date of Supplement 7 classification was
changed to clerk. Employees contend that seniority should date from date
on which position was classified as clerk, whereas carrier contends seniority
should date from date of entering service. Decision-Position of carrier
sustained. N&W-Clks. Decision No. 505.
Claim of telephone operator, whose position was abolished, for right to
exercise her seniority to position on the clerical seniority` roster at point
employed. Under a decision of Railway Board of Adjustment No. 3 of the
U. S. Railroad Administration the position of telephone operator was classi-
fied as a clerical position from September 1, 1918, to November 6, 1919,
after which date this employee was relieved of all clerical work and de-
voted her entire time to the operation of the switchboard. Employees claim
that as the decision of Board No. 3 established her classification as a clerk
from September 1, 1918, that her seniority as clerk should accrue from
that date. Carrier states-and it is not denied by employees-that position held
by this employee was not included on the clerks' seniority roster which has
been duly posted and revised in accordance with the provisions of the
Clerks' National Agreement since the effective date thereof and that em-
ployees have made no protest in regard to it not being shown thereon.
Decision-Claim of employees is denied. N&W-Clks. Decision No. 534.
Dispute with reference to proper seniority date of certain clerical em-
ployees. Decision-Board has been advised that parties to this dispute.
have agreed upon a settlement. Case is, therefore, removed from docket
and file closed. LV-Clks. Decision No. 569. Penn-Clks. Decision No.
571.
Dispute with reference to seniority date of certain clerk. Carrier states that
this employee was dismissed in 1917, but upon investigation revealing that
his dismissal was unjust he was reinstated in the service that when the
first clerk's seniority roster was issued in 1920 his seniority date was
erroneously shown as September 22, 1917, but that as he had been rein-
stated to the service in 1917 his seniority date should be April 22, 1902.
Employees contend that this clerk was not reinstated but was reemployed
and that his seniority should be from September 22, 1917. Decision-Board
decides that seniority of this employee shall date from April 22, 1902.
LV-Clks. Decision No. 642.
1
Dispute with reference to proper seniority date of certain clerk. Decision
-At hearing conducted by Board representatives of the carrier and the
employees expressed a willingness to make joint investigation for purpose
of determining whether or not employee named was a clerk prior to June
16, 1918. If after such investigation it is found that an agreement cannot
be reached the matter may again be submtited to the Board. With this
understanding dispute is removed from docket and file closed. LV-Clks.
Decision No. 643.
Question as to proper seniority date of certain clerical employee who
245
was employed as clerk in August, 1912, but at various times since September,
1916, has been used temporarily as a relief agent on account of his familiar-
ity with agency work, and from September 26, 1919, to September 30, 1920,
was required to work in place of an assistant relief agent. Employees con-
tend that the continuity of this employee's seniority in clerical service
was broken when he engaged as an assistant relief agent in September,
1919, and that after that date he accumulated seniority on the telegraphers'
roster. Decision-Board decides that this employees' seniority shall date
from August 1, 1912, and claim of employees is denied. B&O-Clks. De-
cision No. 790.
Question as to whether certain employee should be given seniority rights
as clerk from date he was assigned to position of receiving clerk and be
allowed back pay for the period that he was not paid as a clerk while holding
said position subsequent to March 1, 1920. This employee entered the
service of the carrier as a laborer on August 10, 1917. On October 1, 1920,
he was classified by the carrier as a receiving clerk, shown on the clerical
seniority roster, and paid the receiving clerk's rate. Decision-Board de-
cides that this employee shall be classified as a clerk and shown on the
clerical seniority roster from August 10, 1917, and paid the difference be-
tween the compensation he received in the service from March 1, to October
1, 1920, and the compensation he would have received if he had been classi-
fied and paid as a clerk effective March 1, 1920. Position of employees is,
therefore, sustained. LV-Clks. Decision No. 853.
Dispute regarding seniority of rights of two employees who entered the service
of the carrier at the same point at the regular starting time on the same day,
and whose pay commenced at the same time. When the force was reduced
in the office in which the employees in question were employed, one of the
employees was permitted to displace the other. Employees contend that
as the pay of both employees started at the same time, their seniority is
the same, and that under such circumstances one employee can not dis-
place the other employee. Carrier states that while it is true that both
of these employees entered the service on the same day, and that their pay
started at the same time, arrangements had been made for the employment
of one of them two weeks in advance of the time she started to work and
two weeks in advance of the receipt of the other party's application for the
position. Decision-Since the two employees involved in this dispute entered
the service on the same day and at the same time and no mutual understand-
ing was had between the carrier and the employees, the Board decides that
the carrier was within its right in designating which employee should be
considered the senior, when it became necessary to do so. Position of carrier
is, therefore, sustained. LV-Clks. Decision No. 918.
(c) Maintenance of Way Forces.
Where employee, after having been granted a year's leave of absence
to perform the duties of general chairman of his organization, was denied
a further extention of six months, question as to right of carrier, upon
failure of said employee to report for work at the expiration of his leave,
to remove his name from the seniority roster. Decision-It has been a recog-
nized and time honored practice of practically all carriers having working
agreements with their employees to grant leaves of absence to general chair-
men representing large groups of employees in order that they might perform
the duties incumbent upon that position-Board decides, therefore, that
carrier was not justified in refusing further leave to this general chairman,
and orders that he be restored to seniority list with his standing prior to
expiration of the last leave granted by the carrier. KCM&O-MofW.
Decision No. 230.
Question as to seniority standing of section foreman promoted to road-
master and subsequently demoted. Carrier permitted him to return to his
former position of section foreman, displacing employee filling said position.
Employees contend that in accepting promotion the employee involved for-
feited his rights as section foreman after thirty days in accordance with
Section (e), Article III, of National Agreement, and in reentering work
246
as foreman should be considered as new man and entitled only to such posi-
tion as may be open. Decision—(a) that appointment to position of road-
master did not constitute a temporary appointment; (b) that the con-
tinuity of service with carrier was not disturbed by said appointment; (c)
that employee involved is entitled to position of section foreman by dis-
placing junior section foreman; and (d) that that employee holding the
position of section foreman formerly held by the promoted man is entitled
to retain said position provided he is not the junior man on the seniority
district. SP-MofW. Decision No: 289.
During winter months it is necessary to place watchman to keep from
freezing boiler of ditching machine located at certain point. In former
years this watchman was provided by the engineering department, but this
year the duties of the watchman were added to those performed by a mechani-
cal department employee in charge of air compressor at same point. Em-
ployees contend that positions of engine watchmen come within jurisdiction
of Maintenance of Way National Agreement, and that derrick engineers and
firemen in the Maintenance of Way Department have right to positions
of engine watchman on ditching or hoisting engines, and claim is made
for time lost by engineer who was denied rights to said position. Decision-
Claim denied. BR&P-MofW. Decision No. 335.
Question as to whether carrier was within its rights in assigning a bridge
carpenter to operate derrick in conjunction with his other duties, instead of
assigning the regular derrick engineer to the performance of this work.
Decision-Carrier did not violate any of the provisions of the agreement
in so assigning the work and its action is, therefore, sustained. BR&P-
MofW. Decision No. 337.
Question as to right of B. & B. foreman promoted to general fore-
man, upon his position of general foreman being abolished, to return to his
former position of B. & B. foreman displacing employee assigned to said
position. Carrier holds that when said employee was promoted to general
foreman it was agreed that he would not thereby lose his seniority rights
and that in event of force reduction he would be entitled to return to his
former position or to any other position to which his seniority entitled him
Decision-Board decides (a) appointment to position of general foreman
did not constitute temporary appointment; (b) continuity of employee's serv-
ice with carrier was not disturbed by said appointment; (c) employee is
entitled to displace the junior B. & B. foreman in point of service as provided
for in Section (e), Article 3 of the National Agreement; (d) employee
filling position formerly held by general foreman is entitled to retain said.
position provided he is not the junior B. & B. foreman on the seniority
district. T&BV-MofW. Decision No. 339.
Question as to whether under rules of the National Agreement a man's
seniority begins anew upon each promotion or whether it is accumulative be-
ginning with date of original employment in the sub-department to which he is
attached. Specific case in question is that of extra gang foreman whose posi-
tion was abolished and who made claim for right to displace a section fore-
man junior in service to him, as foreman but whose unbroken service in the sub-
department antedated that of the claimant and which was denied by carrier.
Later, however, carrier agreed to handle matter as committee desired, pro-
vided it would not be penalized thereby, but committee insisted on payment of
back time for full time employee in question was out of service. Decision-
contention of employee is denied. L&N-Mof W. Decision No. 354.
Question as to whether carrier has the right in reducing force to lay off
certain section laborers and retain other employees of this class who are
junior in the service. In making a reduction in force of 50 men on a certain
section the carrier laid off 10 section laborers who held seniority rights over
certain other employees who were retained in the service, and the employees
claim that the carrier in taking this action has violated the provisions of sec-
tion 3 (c), Article II of the National Maintenance of Way Agreement. Car-
rier takes position that this section of Article II gives them the right to retain
employees capable of performing the work and that the men involved were
members of extra gangs who had been put on to take care of emergency work
247
and whose services were not satisfactory. Decision-The employees offered
no evidence in refutation of the carriers statement that the services of the
employees in question were unsatisfactory, and therefore, based upon the evi-
dence before it the Board decides that the carrier was within its rights in re-
ducing the forces in the manner outlined. SP-MofW. Decision No. 408.
Question as to seniority and demotion of certain B. & B. foreman. Decis-
ion-Based upon facts as presented and applicable only to this case position of
carrier is sustained. FW&DC-MofW. Decision No. 592.
Dispute in regard to seniority rights of employee promoted from section
foreman to assistant road master, serving in that capacity for period of 5
years, when, due to reduction in force, his position of assistant road master
was abolished and he was permitted to displace a section foreman. Employees
claim that as assistant road master this employee was an official of the car-
rier and, therefore, had no seniority rights that would permit him to displace
a foreman, and call attention to Article I of the National Maintenance of Way
Agreement and also to paragraph (c-1), Article II of said agreement. Deci-
sion-Board decides (a) that appointment of this employee to position of assist-
ant road master did not constitute a temporary appointment; (b) that the
continuity of this employee's seniority with the carrier was not disturbed by said
appointment; (c) that this employee as a result of being demoted is entitled to a
position of section foreman by displacing the junior section foreman as pro-
vided in Section (e), Article II of the agreement; (d) that the section fore-
man displaced is entitled to return to his position of section foreman provided
he is not the junior section foreman on the seniority district as provided in
Section (e), Article II of the agreement. MC-Mof W. Decision No. 594.
Question as to seniority rights of employee formerly employed as car-
penter who was laid off account reduction in force when younger men in the
service were retained for regular roustabout work of the B. & B. gang. Car-
rier states this employee was not retained because it was felt that he was un-
able to safely and efficiently perform this class of work and that employment
of this man in such a gang would endanger himself and the rest of the gang
as he was very clumsy in the handling of materials and was in general inca-
pable, and takes the position that they have the right under the seniority pro-
visions of the agreement to determine whether or not an employee is capable
of performing the work. Decision-Board decides that carrier did not violate
the meaning and intent of the agreement in this case. However, it recommends
that when the forces are increased this party be reemployed in some line of
work that he may be capable of performing. LV-MofW. Decision No. 799.
Question as to right of section foreman, promoted to assistant road-
master, upon his position as assistant roadmaster being abolished, to re-
turn to his former position of section foreman. Decision-On evidence sub-
mitted, the Board decides: (a) That the appointment of this section fore-
man to assistant roadmaster did not constitute a temporary appointment; (b)
that the continuity of his service with the carrier was not disturbed by said
appointment; (c) that this employee, as a result of being demoted, is en-
titled to a position as section foreman by displacing the junior (in point of
service) section foreman as provided in Section (e), Article II of agree-
ment, in effect at time of such demotion; (d) that the employee, filling the
position formerly held by this section foreman, is entitled to retain said
position, provided he is not the junior section foreman on the seniority dis-
trict, as provided in Section (e), Article II of the agreement. MC-MofW.
Decision No. 804.
Claim of certain carpenters for reinstatement, without loss of seniority
and pay for time lost, while held out of service and men younger in the service
retained, employees contending that the laying off of these men was contrary
to the meaning and intent of Section (c-2), Article II, of the agreement which
provides that when a force is reduced, the senior men in the subdepartment
on the seniority district, capable of doing the work shall be retained. Deci-
sion-Board recognizes that the language of the rule referred to leaves the mat-
ter largely in the hands of the carrier to determine whether or not an employee
is capable of doing the work. The Board also recognizes-and without any
reflection as to the motive or future intention of any carrier or organization-
that unless some restriction is placed upon that portion of the rule, reading
248
"capable of doing the work" it would be subject to application that would mini-
mize, if not entirely destroy, the principle of seniority. The Board is, therefore,
of opinion that when the reduction in forces, such as outlined in this decision,
becomes necessary, and when the question as to the capabilities of employees is
involved, that careful consideration should be given to qualifications,, and if
practicable, conference held between the representatives of the respective
parties in an effort to arrive at a mutual understanding prior to such reduction
in force. Claim for reinstatement of the men involved in this particular dis-
pute is denied. DL&W-MofW. Decision No. 807.
Claim of certain track laborer for assignment to position of section fore-
man, which he filled temporarily while position was being advertised for bids,
which position was awarded to a former employee on the ground that the only
bidder on the position was incompetent to fill same. Carrier takes position that
the track laborer in question did not bid on the position of foreman when the
job was advertised, and, therefore, the management was under no obligation
to continue him in the position which he was filling temporarily pending closing
of the bids. He was considered competent to fill the position temporarily, but
did not have sufficient experience or ability to hold the position during the time
that the regular foreman would be away. Furthermore, this track laborer,
at the time the matter came up, had been employed only seven weeks and
three days and was not entitled to exercise seniority rights to the position in
question. Decision-In view of the fact that this employee was credited with
less than six months' service record, the Board is of the opinion that, in view
of the language of Section (h), Article II, of the agreement, that the question
of seniority has no bearing in this case. The Board cannot find that the man-
agement has violated the rules of the agreement in this particular case, and
the claim of the employees is, therefore denied. BR&P-MofW. Decision
No. 809.
(d) Express Employees.
Claim of certain employee for right to exercise his seniority rights to po-
sition of express messenger on trains operating between certain points. Car-
rier denied request for reason that this applicant did not reside at the home
terminal of the run in question, taking the position that owing to the uncer-
tainty of train service it is necessary to call on train employees to do extra
service and that express messengers who elect to reside at a distance from the
terminal of their runs and who are not available for such extra service are not
desired on important runs. This employee was advised that he would be assign-
ed to the run if he would maintain residence at the home terminal thereof, but
this he declined to do. Decision-Request of employees denied. ARE-Clks.
Decision No. 661.
Dispute with reference to seniority date of certain express employees. Em-
ployees contend that this employee left carrier's service to enter the U. S.
Navy and that under the provisions of Interpretation 1 to Supplement 19 to
G. Ö. 27 his seniority should date from the date he entered the service, viz,
July 1, 1917. Carrier states that this employee did not leave the service to
enter the Navy but was dismissed from the service for cause and that.
therefore, when he was permitted to return to the service it was as a new em-
ployee and his seniority should date from date of his return to the service,
viz, September 1, 1919. Decision-Position of carrier sustained. ARE-
Clks. Decision No. 690.
(e) Telegraph Forces.
Dispute with reference to right of certain train dispatcher to return to
position of train dispatcher on division on which he was temporarily out of the
service. This employee who was working as an extra dispatcher on a certain
division was transferred to another division for a certain period for tempor-
ary relief work, at the end of which period he was returned to his own division
with seniority rights unimpaired. Employees contend that by the transfer of
this dispatcher to another division for relief work he forfeited his seniority
rights as a dispatcher on his home division. Decision-Claim of employees
denied. CRI&P-ATDA. Decision No. 781.
249
(f) Shop Forces.
Question as to seniority standing as a pattern maker of a certain employee
and request for his reinstatement with pay for time lost. This employee was
employed on May 4, 1902, as carpenter and worked in that capacity until
June 7, 1905, when he was assigned and classified as pattern maker; he worked
in this capacity (except from October 1, 1908, to May 1, 1909, when he was
foreman of cabinet shop) until August 13, 1913, on which date he was dis-
charged because of altercation with a foreman. He was held out of service
two weeks and reentered the service August 28, 1913, without change of assign-
ment or classification and continued in that capacity until March 22, 1921, on
which date he was laid off account reduction in force. Employees contend that
this employee was reinstated and that his seniority as pattern maker dates from
June 1905, while carrier takes the position that the discharge on August 13,
1913, constitutes a break in the continuity of his seniority and that his seniority
only dates from August 28, 1913. Decision-Claim of employees sustained.
Employee in question shall be reinstated with seniority rights unimpaired and
paid for time lost, deducting any amount that he may have earned in other
employment since date he was taken out of service. L&N-ShpCrf. Decision
No. 792.
Question as to seniority of certain employee who bid for and accepted
temporary position of car inspector, but who refused to bid on position when
advertised as permanent, and returned to his former position when he was
told that he lost his seniority at the shops when he took the temporary
position. Decision-Evidence indicates that position of car inspector was
advertised as "temporary" and it is, therefore, reasonable to assume that
this employee accepted position with that understanding. Board does not feel,
therefore, that this employee should have been denied his seniority and
decides that he shall be restored to his standing at the shops and compen-
sated to extent that he has suffered a wage loss account of denial of such
seniority, deducting any amount he may have earned in other employment.
B&M-AFofRRW. Decision No. 802.
""
Question as to seniority rights of certain foreman of car inspectors
whose position was abolished and who was assigned as car inspector on first
trick, thereby displacing the junior man thereon. Employees contend that
this employee should have been assigned to whatever position was open
on his craft or displace the junior mechanic on the seniority roster of "Other
carmen, as set out in Rule 31 of the Shop Crafts' Agreement. Decision-
Board decides that the foreman in question is entitled to the continuity of
his seniority, dating from the time he entered the service, but that when his
position was abolished the only seniority rights he could have exercised
would have been to take any vacant position to which his seniority entitled
him, or in the event of there being no vacancies, he could displace the junior
man of his craft and class, in accordance with the subdivision set out in Rule
31. If questions arise as to the inability of employees whose positions
are abolished to perform certain classes of work, a conference should be
held between the representatives of the interested parties in an effort to
arrive at a mutual understanding regarding the position to which the em-
ployee involved should be assigned. Rule 23 of the agreement should also
be given proper consideration if practicable. If any change is made in
this employee's assignment, there shall be no monetary adjustment account
of issuance of this decision-HV-ShpCrf. Decision No. 895.
(g) Signal Forces.
Question as to right of signal maintainer, promoted to position of signal
supervisor, upon position of signal supervisor being abolished to return to
his former position, displacing employee assigned thereto. Carrier contends
that when this employee was promoted to position of signal maintainer it
was understood that he would have the right to return to his former posi-
tion in event the position of signal supervisor was abolished. Decision-
(a) Board decides that appointment of this employee to position of signal
supervisor did not constitute a temporary appointment; (b) continuity of
250
4
employee's service with the carrier was not disturbed by said employment;
(c) that this employee, as a result of being demoted is entitled to a position
of signal maintainer by displacing the signal maintainer having the least
seniority rights of the seniority district as per Section 8, Article IV of the
agreement; (d) employee filling position formerly held by this signal super-
visor is entitled to retain said position provided he is not the junior signal
maintainer on the seniority district. CB&Q-Sig. Decision No. 801.
4. Impairment of Accumulated Seniority as Measure of Discipline.
(a) Shop Crafts.
Dispute as to reinstatement with pay for all time lost by blacksmith
dismissed from the service-cause not shown. Decision-Board decides
that upon the written and oral evidence submitted carrier was justified in
administering discipline in this case, but in view of this man's past record
with the Company and other circumstances cited in this case he shall be
reemployed with the same accumulated seniority with which he was credited
on the date of his dismissal, but shall not be paid for time lost. The time
lost shall be deducted from his accumulated seniority. FtW&DC-SC.
Decision 590.
5. Miscellaneous.
(a) Clerical Forces.
Dispute with reference to seniority of clerk-no facts given. Case with-
drawn by employees and file closed. LV-Clks.
LV-Clks. Decision No. 823.
(b) Shop Forces.
Seniority claim of certain boilermaker. No facts given. Decision-At
oral hearing conducted by the Board, it was agreed between the representa-
tives of the respective parties that the case should be referred back to the
local committee, and that the decision of said committee would be considered
final. The Board is in receipt of advice that the committee has rendered
its decision, and that it is not necessary for the Board to take further action
in the premises. The docket in the case is, therefore, closed. SJBR-ShpCrf.
Decision No. 922.
•
(c) Express Employees.
Where certain drivers in the vehicle service were transferred from one
stable to another within the same seniority district, but no change made in
the duties or salaries of the positions, employees are contending that the
carrier was not justified in making such transfer against the wishes of
the employees in question. Decision-Board decides that the action of the
carrier in transferring employees in question was not in conflict with the
rules governing the working conditions of employees in vehicle service and
claim of employees is denied. ARE-RyED-CC&H. Decision No. 939.
SENIORITY DISTRICTS.
Question as to what shall constitute a seniority district in the general
offices; employees contending for each general classified department; road
contending for sub-departments in each of the general classified departments.
Board decides each of general classified departments shall constitute a seniority
district. C&S-Clerks. Decision No. 50.
Dispute with reference to furnishing copy of seniority roster to the duly
accredited representative of clerical employees. Decision-Board decides
that under the provisions of Rule 22 of the Clerks' National Agreement,
the duly accredited representative of the employees covered by said agree-
ment is entitled to a copy of the seniority roster, and position of employees
is, therefore, sustained. SP-Clks. Decision Nos. 519 and 511.
Dispute with reference to posting seniority roster in the mechanical de-
partment of the offices at certain point. Case withdrawn by employees and
file closed. AT&SF-Clks. Decision No. 819.
251
SHIFTER SERVICE.
Question as to increase to be applied to shifter brakeman under Decision
2. Decision-Apply increase of $1.04 per day; service being analogous to
mine-run service. C&O-Trainmen. Int. 8 to Decision No. 2.
Request for reclassification of “mine run" and "shifter" service, which
would have effect of increasing rates of pay from through freight to local.
Denied. N&W-C&T. Decision No. 60.
SHIFTS-CHANGING. See "Changing Shifts-Pay for."
SHOP ACCOUNTANT.
Question as to application of Decision 2 to position of shop accountant,
employees contending that the occupant of this position should be classified as
a subordinate official and increased under Sec. 1 of Article II, while carrier
holds that position in question is of a supervisory character. Decision-Posi-
tion in question is not included in Decision 2. MK&T-Clerks. Decision
No. 200.
SHOP AGREEMENT. National. See "National Agreements."
SHOP EMPLOYEES.
Increases granted by Labor Board to. See "Art. IV of Decision 2." See
"Art. IV of Decision 5."
Decreases, effective July 1, 1921, covering. See "Art. IV, Decision
147, and Addenda 1 and 2 thereto."
Application of Decision 2 to. See "Decision 2-Application of."
Application of Decision 119 to. See "Decision 119-Application of."
Application of Decision 147 to. See "Decision 147-Application of."
Application of Decision 222 to. See "Decision 222-Application of."
Right of Representation. See "Representation Rights.'
SHOP WATCHMEN.
"
Question whether positions of shop watchmen at repair shops come within
scope of Paragraph 2, Rule 1, Art. I, Clerks' National Agreement; employees
contending term "watchman" as used in rule referred to applies to all watch-
men except those carried as railroad policemen, and that such employees should
be paid on a daily basis of eight consecutive hours, exclusive of meal period,
with appropriate overtime rates for time worked in excess thereof and on
Sundays and holidays. Decision-Positions referred to do not come within
scope of Clerks' National Agreement. C&A-Clerks. Decision No. 113.
PT-BRSE. Decision 838.
SHORT LINES.
Request of fifteen organizations of employees of sixty-seven so-called
"Short Line" railroads for application to them of the agreement, orders, etc.,
of U. S. Railroad Administration and for substantially the same scale of
wages as now apply to employees of the standard railroads. Case dismissed,
reasons stated in decision. See decision for railroads and employees affected.
Decision No. 108.
SHORT TURNAROUND PASSENGER SERVICE. See "Eight-with-
in-ten-hour-rule."
SHUTTLE TRAIN SERVICE.
After removal of divisional terminal on October 1, 1919, carrier pro-
vided shuttle service for the accommodation of employees, permitting them
to continue their residence at the old terminal point. On March 28, 1921,
company gave notice of termination of shuttle service, effective June 10th,
and discontinued the service on that date. Request is now made for restora-
tion of this shuttle train service. Decision-Board declines to order restora-
tion of this service with the proviso that the three callers will be kept on at
252
the old terminal until August 10, 1921, at which time the continuation of the
three callers will be given consideration in conference between directly inter-
ested parties. MC-EFCT-SC. Decision No. 175.
SICKNESS. Pay for time lost due to. See "Time Lost-Pay For."
SIGNAL DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES.
Increases granted by Labor Board to. See "Art. IX, Decision 2."
Decreases, effective July 1, 1921. See "Art. IX, Decision 147, and Add.
1 and 2 thereto."
Question as to application of Article IX, Decision 5, to signal employees.
Decision―These employees were not a party to or included in the proceedings
which resulted in the issuance of Decision 5. B&A-Signalmen.
B&A—Signalmen. Decision
No. 207.
Classification of. See "Classification of Positions, Service and Rates."
Application of Decision 2 to. See "Decision 2-Application of."
Application of Decision 119 to. See "Decision 119-Application of."
SIXTEEN-HOUR LAW. See "Tie-ups on Road."
SLEEPING-CAR EMPLOYEES' UNION.
See "Brotherhood of Dining and Sleeping Car Employees' Union."
Request for establishment of free sleeping quarters for messengers in
train service in North Pacific Department. Employees state it is practice to
provide sleeping quarters for express messengers at many terminals, and
contend that failure to provide free sleeping quarters for the messengers in-
volved in this dispute is a discrimination. Decision-Evidence shows that
free sleeping quarters for messengers are not required by any order or
agreement and their establishment is entirely voluntary on part of carrier.
Claim of employees is therefore denied. ARECo-Clks. Decision No. 295.
SLEEPING IN OFFICE AFTER COMPLETION REGULAR ASSIGN-
MENT-PAID FOR.
Claim of certain employees for overtime account of being required to sleep
in office after completion of their regular assignment. Employees contend
that as the employees named are required to be at the office during specified
hours to act as guards of the premises and perform certain janitor work, and
are also required to make arrangements to have their places filled when they
desire to lay off and compensate employees who relieve them for the service ren-
dered, they are entitled to pay at established overtime rate for all time required
to be on duty after completion of their regular assignment. Carrier admits
that these employees slept in quarters provided for their use, but states that
in accepting their positions they fully understood that they were expected to avail
themselves of the sleeping quarters provided for them, and contends that under
the circumstances claim for overtime work or payment of any other compensa-
tion for sleeping on the premises of the carrier is unjustified. Decision-
Claim of employees denied. ARE-OofRE. Decisions No. 900 and 907.
SNOW BLOCKADE. Time lost due to.
See "Acts of Providence-Time lost due to."
SNOW-PLOW SERVICE.
Claim for refund of money deducted from pay, account ruling of com-
pany placing unassigned snow-plow service in same category as work-train
service. Sustained. D&SL-EFCT. Decisions Nos. 22 and 23.
Claim for runaround account regular freight crews assigned to another
district being used in temporary or unassigned snow-plow service on the
district to which claimants were assigned. Sustained. D&SL-EFCT. De-
cision No. 24.
253
SPECIAL ALLOWANCES.
See "Arbitraries and Special Allowances.”
STARTING TIME.
Where working hours of chauffeurs and helpers in the vehicle department
of American Railway Express Company were from 7 a. m. to 4 p. m. on
Mondays, and from 8 a. m. to 5 p. m. on other days of week, and where,
after due notice, starting time of these employees were changed to 8 a. m.
on Mondays and 9 a. m. on other days of week, request is made that work-
ing hours previously in effect be reestablished. Decision-Request denied.
Change in starting time was made in accordance with rules governing employ-
ees in this branch of service. ARECO-EDC&O. Decision No. 112.
Where starting time of assignment of two employees was changed from
12:00 midnight to 1:30 a. m., claim is made by employees that such change
was in violation of Rule 53 of the National Agreement, which provides that
where three consecutive shifts are worked no shift will have a starting
time after 12:00 o'clock midnight and before 5:00 a. m. Carrier takes
position that this rule applies to employees who work in three shift positions ;
that the employees referred to are not so assigned, and that, therefore, the
action of the carrier in changing the assignment was not in violation of said
rule. Decision-Evidence shows that platform men at the station named
are not assigned to three-shift positions as referred to in Rule 53, but
that the service performed by said employees is continuous throughout the
24 hour period, there being from one to three platform men on duty at all
times. Position of the employees sustained. ARE-Clks. Decision No.
881.
STATE LAW REQUIREMENTS AS TO HOURS OF SERVICE
FOR FEMALE EMPLOYEES. See "Female Employees.”
STATION FORCES.
Application of Decision 2 to Pullman Company and its clerical and station
employees. Add. 6 to Decision No. 2.
STATIONARY ENGINE AND BOILER-ROOM EMPLOYEES.
Increases granted by Labor Board to. See "Art. VIII, Decision 2." See
"Art. VII, Decision 5."
Decreases, effective July 1, 1921, covering. See "Art. VIII, Decision 147,
and Addenda 1 and 2 thereto."
Application of Decision 2 to. See "Decision 2—Application of.”
Application of Decision 119 to. See "Decision 119-Application_of."
Classification of. See "Classification of Positions, Service and Rates."
STATION WAREHOUSEMEN.
Dispute in connection with the bulletining of certain so-called non-clerical
positions, designated as station warehousemen. Decision-Board decides that
inasmuch as question of bulletining non-clerical positions was given con-
sideration in conferences between representatives of employees and the carrier,
in accordance with Decision No. 119, it is not necessary for Board to make
interpretation of rule at this time. This should not be understood to pro-
hibit the employees from presenting claims for compensation in manner pro-
vided in agreement, and, if not satisfactorily adjusted, to the Labor Board in
accordance with Title III of Transportation Act, 1920. SP-Clks. Decision
No. 239.
STOREHOUSE LABORERS. See "Laborers."
STRIKES.
Claim of clerical employees for time lost while temporarily laid off during
the period of an unauthorized strike of train and engine service employees.
Denied. Erie-Clerks. Decision No. 197. DL&W-Clerks; Decision No. 198.
Inquiry and proceeding instituted and conducted by the Labor Board
254
on its own motion under the provisions of the statute in the matter of
the threatened general strike of train and engine service employees on ac-
count of dissatisfaction with Decision No. 147, making a reduction in wages.
The Board states (1) when any change of wages, contracts or rules previ-
ously in effect are contemplated or proposed by either party, conference must
be had as directed by Transportation Act, and by rules or decisions of pro-
cedure promulgated by the Board, and where agreements are not reached
the dispute must be brought before the Board and no action taken or change
made until authorized by Board; (2) the ordering or authorizing of the
strike by the organizations of employees was a violation of Decision No.
147, but said strike order having been withdrawn, it is not necessary for
Board to take any further steps in matter; (3) such overt acts by either
party tending to and threatening an interruption of the transportation
lines, the peaceful and uninterrupted operation of which are so absolutely
necessary to the peace, prosperity and safety of the entire people, are in
themselves, even when they do not culminate in a stoppage of traffic, a cause
and source of great injury and damage; and further, for the consideration of
employees interested, the Board points out that when such action does re-
sult in a strike, the organization so acting has forfeited its rights and rights
of its members in and to the provisions and benefits of all contracts there-
tofore existing, and employees so striking have voluntarily removed them-
selves from the classes entitled to appeal to the Board for relief and pro-
tection. (See Decision No. 147 for carriers involved. EFCTS. Decision
No. 299.
Request for pay for time lost by certain carpenters. Account of illegal
strike of train and engine service employees, which strike also involved cer-
tain station employees, shopmen, etc., who either actually participated or threat-
ened to participate therein, the B. & B. carpenters under the supervision of the
master carpenters were directed to perform certain duties in connection with
the care and maintenance of bunk cars which were being used for purpose of
housing the railroad police department employees. The employees in question
refused to perform the service to which assigned and as practically all of the
carpenter force together with the foremen were engaged in work of a similar
character in connection with this strike there were no other duties to which these
employees could be assigned during the period of the strike. Decision-Claim
for time lost is denied. PaRR-MofW. Decision No. 517.
SUBORDINATE OFFICIALS. (See also “Supervisory Forces.”)
Application of increases granted by Labor Board to. See "Sec. 8, Art.
XIII, Decision 2."
Application of decreases, effective July 1, 1921, to. See "Sec. 4, Art. XIII,
Decision 147."
Question as to application of Decision 2 to position of shop accountant,
employees contending that the occupant of this position should be classified
as a subordinate official and increased under Sec. 1 of Art. II, while carrier
holds that position in question is of a supervisory character. Decision-Posi-
tion in question is not included in Decision 2. MK&T-Clerks. Decision
No. 200.
Request for reinstatement and pay for time lost while out of service by
two section foremen dismissed account membership in labor union to which
the men working under them also belonged. Decision-Action of carrier in
discharging these men for cause named was unfair, unjust and unreasonable
and men shall be reinstated with full seniority rights; and be reimbursed for
losses suffered, less any amounts earned since date of dismissal, provided there
was on this carrier an existing rule or established usage guaranteeing to em-
ployees pay for loss occasioned by unjust suspension or dismissal. (Board
states its decision is based on just and reasonable grounds rather than on the
strict legal rights of the parties involved.) Butler CountyRR-MofW. De-
cision No. 224.
Question as to application of rules governing working conditions for train
dispatchers to chief train dispatchers. Decision-This dispute is returned to
the employees and carriers for conference and further consideration in ac-
255
cordance with Section 1 of General Instructions of Decision No. 721. MStP&
SSTM-ATDA. Decision No. 810. WM-ATDA. Decision No. 811. MC.
Decision No. 812. LI. Decision No. 813. D&RG. Decision No. 814. SP.
Decision No. 815. D&RG. Decision No. 848. I&GN. Decision No: 849.
CM&StP. Decision No. 850. SP. Decision No. 866.
SUBURBAN ELECTRIC RAILWAYS. See "Electric Railways.”
SUBURBAN SERVICE.
(Exclusive.)
Board to conductors and trainmen in. See
"Sec. 2, Art. VI, Decision 5."
Increases granted by Labor
"Sec. 2, Art. VII, Decision 2."
Decreases, effective July 1,
See "Sec. 2, Art. VII, Decision 147."
1921, covering conductors and trainmen in.
SUNDAY AND HOLIDAY SERVICE.
Question as to how increases provided in Sec. 7, Art. III, of Decision 2,
shall be applied to employees who are assigned to work the calendar days
of the month, are paid monthly rate, and receive no additional compensation
for service performed on Sundays and holidays. N&W-MofW. Int. 1 to
Decision No. 2.
Question as to proper application of Sec. 3, Art. XIII, Decision 2, to
monthly rated employees; employees contending that 204 hours, when worked
out, establishes a 306-day year for monthly rated employees, and therefore
such employees, when required to work on Sundays or the seven specified
holidays should be paid therefor at the overtime rates in addition to their
monthly rate, or be paid as many hours per month as their assignment re-
quires in each case, times the hourly increase. Decision-Int. 1 to Decision
2 clearly outlines the intent of that decision in applying increases to monthly
rated employees in M. of W. department, and should therefore govern in
this dispute. MP-MofW. Decision No. 114.
Question as to whether certain stationary engineers, who are monthly
rated employees and received an increase under Decision 2 based on 204 hours
per month, should be allowed overtime for service performed on Sundays and
holidays. Decision-Int. 1 to Decision 2 covers similar question as to extra
payment for service in excess of 204 hours per month, and should govern
in this dispute. TRRofStL-IUofS&OE. Decision No. 202.
Where foremen, while not required to report for duty on Sundays, are
required to keep their whereabouts known to their superior officer and re-
spond promptly when called, claim is made that, as they are required to re-
main in their respective territories on Sundays, subject to call, they should
receive pay therefor. Decision-Claim denied. BR&P-MofW. Decision
No. 210.
Under Addendum No. 2 to Decision No. 119, question as to (a) proper
compensation for time worked outside of established day of eight hours, July
1 to Aug. 15, 1921, inclusive; (b) proper compensation for time worked by
hourly-paid employees for service rendered on Sundays and designated holi-
days, July 1 to 15, 1921; (c) proper compensation for monthly-paid employees
for service rendered on Sundays and designated holidays, July 1 to 15, 1921.
Decision (a) overtime rate specified in first paragraph Rule 6, Decision No.
222, shall apply for time worked outside established day of eight hours, July 1
to Aug. 15, 1921; (b) second paragraph Rule 6, Decision No. 222, shall apply
for service rendered by hourly-rated employees on Sundays and designated
holidays, July 1 to Aug. 15, 1921; (c) provisions of rule 15 of Decision No.
222 shall apply for period July 1 to Aug. 15, 1921-except that in each of these
instances on roads and for classes of employees having a more favorable method
of payment prior to effective date of any Supplement to G. O. 27 promulgated
by Railroad Administration, or who had reached agreement pursuant to De-
cision No. 119 providing a more favorable method of payment, the more favor-
able method of payment shall apply. Employees who were compensated on a
less favorable basis than outlined shall be reimbursed to extent of any wage
loss suffered for period above mentioned. Int. 1 to Addendum 2 to Decision
No. 119.
256
Where certain employees were required to work on specified holidays, but
later given a day off in lieu thereof, claim is made that under the agreement
they are entitled to extra day's pay for work performed on such holidays.
Decision-Claim sustained. ARECo-Clks. Decision No. 305.
Where certain section laborers were called to wreck on Sunday and worked
thereat from 8 a. m. until 6 p. m., for which they were compensated at pro rata
rate for first 8 hours and time and one-half rate for remainder of time on duty,
claim is made that employees in question are entitled to punitive overtime for
all services rendered on Sundays under latter paragraph of Section (a-5) and
also Section (a-6), Article V of the National Agreement. Decision-Claim
of employees is denied. MoPac-MofW. Decision No. 355.
Claim of telegrapher not regularly assigned to Sunday service for com-
pensation under the overtime and call rules of agreement for work performed
on Sunday in place of another employee. This telegrapher was required to
work in place of wire chief, who laid off account serious illness in his family,
from 4 p. m. to midnight and was paid for such service at the straight time rate
of the position which he was filling. Decision-Claim denied. CRI&PRy—
Tel. Decision No. 374.
Where copy operator at certain point formerly assigned to duty seven days.
a week was relieved on Sundays and his work, which consisted of transmitting
messages, reports and train orders for passenger trains by telegraph, was
handled by train dispatcher, claim is made for compensation for Sundays on
which the regular duties of the position were handled by train dispatcher,
contention being that the agreement between the employees and carrier pro-
vides that the duties of all positions listed therein shall be performd by the
classes of employees specified in Article I therein whenever such employees are
available. Carrier contends its action in relieving this copy operator from
Sunday service was not in conflict with provisions of any order or agreement
but on the contrary was in accordance with instructions of Director General of
Railroads in the closing paragraph of Supplement 13 to General Order 27. De-
cision-Claim of employees denied. L&N Ry-Tel. Decision No. 383.
Question as to whether warehouse employees at certain points shall be paid
double time for work performed on Sundays and holidays. Decision-It ap-
pears that this controversy does not involve specific claims for compensation
from any of the employees affected and that dispute is submitted as an addenda
to the submission to the Board covering result of negotiations on proposed
rules conducted in accordance with Decision No. 119. Dispute will therefore,
be considered an addenda to the submission on rules and this docket is, there-
fore, closed. CM&StP-Clks. Decision No. 387.
Question as to whether (1) Addendum 2 to Decision No. 119 provides
for payment of pro rata rate for regular and special assignments on Sundays
and holidays and (2) Addendum 2 affects payment under the call rule as em-
bodied in the National Agreement. Employees contend that Addendum 2 to
Decision No. 119 makes no mention of Sunday and holiday work but has ref-
erence only to overtime after regular hours, and in view of the fact that
question as to payment of Sunday and holiday time was one of the disputed
rules submitted to the Labor Board for decision, the National Agreement
should apply until the Labor Board renders a decision on this question. In re-
gard to payment for call, employees take position that until a decision is
rendered thereon the National Agreement should also apply and three hours
should be the minimum payment. Carrier takes position that as no overtime
was allowed for Sunday and holiday work prior to Federal control it is proper,
in accordance with Addendum 2 to Decision No. 119, to pay pro rata for such
service until the Board disposes of the question; and that in regard to the call
rule, that in allowing a minimum of two hours at pro rata rate they are com-
plying with the meaning and intent of Decision No. 119 and Addendum 2
thereto. Decision-(1) Under provisions of Addendum 2 to Decision No.
119 pro rata rate shall be paid for regular and special assignments of signal
department employees on Sunday and holidays, except classes of employees
which have reached agreements on overtime rates or who by agreement or
practice were receiving a rate higher than pro rata prior to the promulgation of
any general order of the U. S. Railroad Administration relating to wages and
working conditions; (2) inasmuch as the call rule referred to specifies an
257
allowance of "two hours at overtime rates," the overtime rate under provisions
of Addendum 2 to Decision No. 119 shall be applied. These decisions shall
apply with the understanding that if the rules promulgated by the Board are
more favorable to the employees adjustment in compensation due will be
made by the carrier. NYCRR-Sig. Decision No. 407.
Dispute in regard to payment of Sunday and holiday service in the steam
power plant at certain point, employees claiming that the carrier was not
complying with the National Agreement covering firemen and oilers, nor with
Addendum 2 to Decision No. 119. At the oral hearing conducted by the
Board certain matters not specifically mentioned in the employees' submis-
sion were injected, and it also developed that the supporting evidence ap-
pended to employees submission referred to several questions and did not
cover any specific complaint or dispute. It was, therefore, suggested by the
examiner that the submission be redrawn in order that it might clearly
set forth the employees' contention and that such redraft be handled as a
new submission. Decision-Case is, therefore, considered closed and if
further submission is made in connection therewith, evidence already sub-
mitted will be considered in conjunction with the resubmission if the parties
to the dispute so desire. SP-FireandOilers. Decision No. 520.
Question as to whether section foremen who are paid a monthly rate on a
313-day basis shall be allowed extra compensation for work performed on holi-
days, employees claiming that under Section (e), Article V of National
Maintenance of Way Agreement, the number of working days constituting
a working year are 306 days for foremen, and that under Section (a-5) of
Article V, when foremen are required to work on Sundays or any of the
seven specified holidays they should be paid the pro rata hourly rate in
addition to their monthly rate. Carrier states that when the National Agree-
ment became effective the 313-day basis was established for section fore-
men and they were allowed extra pay for Sunday work, other than such
work as making out reports, posting time books, attending staff meetings and
similar duties not directly connected with the actual work of their gangs
and that this basis has been continued. Decision-Claim of employees de-
nied. SP-MofW. Decision No. 546.
Question whether monthly rated foremen should be allowed overtime for
services rendered on Sundays and holidays in addition to their regular
monthly salary. Decision-Claim of employees denied. MP-MofW.
Decision No. 209. Vir. Decision No. 233. IC. Decision No. 547.
Question as to whether certain supervisory foremen in the Maintenance
of Way service should receive extra compensation when required to super-
vise their gangs on Sundays and holidays. Decision-Board sustains position
of carrier in the manner in which Section (h) of Article V of the National
Maintenance of Way Agreement, has been applied up to the effective date
of Addendum 2 to Decision No. 119 (July 1, 1921), from which date Adden-
dum 2 or any agreement that may have been subsequently entered into shall
be made applicable. In event that no agreement has been reached, Section
(h), Article V of Decision No. 501, effective December 16, 1921, shall apply
in the manner provided therein. For all service considered as overtime
for which extra compensation is provided, the hourly rate of pay for such
service shall be predicated upon 204 hours per month in accordance with
Section (e), Article V of Decision No. 501, regardless of the hours or days
that may be considered as the regular assignment of monthly rated super-
visory forces. T&P-MofW. Decision No. 593.
Claim of daily rated employees for pay for Armistice Day (which was
declared a legal holiday at the points in question) on which day they were
notified not to work. Decision-The language of Rule 66 of the Clerks' Na-
tional Agreement is understood by the Board to refer to the holidays desig-
nated in Rule 64 of said agreement, unless other holidays are mutually
agreed upon. In lieu of any such agreement the Board decides that under
this rule daily rated employees are entitled to pay for Armistice Day. PM-
Clks. Decision No. 574. MC-Decision No. 764.
Request for restoration of past practice said to exist in certain general
offices of letting clerical employees off the afternoon of the day before
258
Christmas without deduction in pay, and claim for pay for clerical em-
ployees who were denied this privilege, December 24, 1920. Decision-Re-
quest denied. StL&SF-Clks. Decision No. 610.
SUPERVISORY AGENTS. Classification of. See "Classification of Po--
sitions, Service and Rates."
SUPERVISORY FORCES. (See also "Subordinate Officials.”)
Increases granted by Labor Board to. See "Art. XI, Decision 2." See
"Art. VIII, Decision 5."
Decreases, effective July 1, 1921, covering. See "Art. XI, Decision 147."
Application of Decision 2 to. See "Decision 2—Application of."
For Senority standing of Employees Promoted to Supervisory Positions.
See "Seniority."
Was the action of the carrier in abolishing the position of chief car
record clerk and creating position of car accountant in conflict with Rule
84 of Clerks' National Agreement, and does the position of car accountant
come within the scope of the agreement. Decision-Board decides that
action of carrier was not a violation of Rule 84, and that the position of car
accountant at the point in question is not within the scope of the National
Agreement. RF&P-Clks. Decision No. 241.
Question as to whether position of assistant superintendent, vehicle serv-
ice, comes within the scope of agreement as defined in Article I thereof.
Decision-Position in question does not come within scope of agreement.
ARECo-Clks. Decision No. 294.
Shall the employees who exercise direct supervision over, and are held
responsible for the work of coach cleaners, who are paid hourly rates of
pay, receive 5c per hour above the maximum rate paid coach cleaners
at points employed, in accordance with Section 4, Article III of Supplement
4 to General Order 27. Decision-Yes. SP-ShpCrf. Decision No. 350.
Question as to whether certain telephone and telegraph equipment super-
visors shall be permitted to perform mechanic's work. Evidence indicates
that carrier employs three men who are classified as telephone and telegraph
equipment supervisors; paid a monthly salary and allowed actual expenses
while traveling on the carrier's business. Employees contend that these
men are used to perform mechanic's work in violation of Rule 32 of the
National Agreement, and call attention to Decision No. 1682, rendered
by Board of Adjustment No. 2 of the U. S. Railroad Administration, re-
garding classification of telegraph and telephone supervisors which Decision
provided in effect that said supervisors should not be permitted to perform
mechanic's work. Decision-Labor Board does not construe language of Rule
32, as prohibiting supervisory employees instructing other employees in the
performance of their work, whereby to carry out such instructions it is
necessary to perform certain mechanic's work, nor is it the Board's con-
struction of that rule that such supervisory employees are prohibited from
performing emergency work where mechanics are not available. It is, how-
ever, the Board's opinion, based on the evidence before it, that the em-
ployees in question have been performing certain work that should have been
properly assigned to mechanics, which practice is contrary to the intent of the
rules and should be discontinued. CRI&P-ShpCrf. Decision No. 405.
Question as to whether supervisory employees covered by the provisions
of Section 8, Article V of the National Maintenance of Way Agreement,
shall be allowed overtime for service performed after 8 hours, such as mak-
ing up payrolls, time books, material reports, accident reports or any other
reports these employees are called upon to make after 8 hours have been
worked. Decision-Employees in question, in accordance with the rule
referred to, are not entitled to overtime for the performance of services
mentioned. Penn-Mof W. Decision No. 411.
Question as to whether labor foremeň in shops and shop yards, who super-
vise laborers, are covered by the National Maintenance of Way Agreement.
Case withdrawn by employees and file closed. IllCen-MofW. Decision
No. 604.
259
Question as to whether certain agency, classified by the carrier as super-
visory agency, shall be included within the scope of the Telegraphers' Agree-
ment. Decision-It is admitted by the employees that in the negotiations in
November, 1919, supervisory agents were not included in the agreement, and
it further appears that under date of August 9, 1920, the employees advised
the carrier of their willingness to consider this station a supervisory agency
with the understanding that it would remain in the agreement as such.
The Board, therefore, decides that the station in question shall not be in-
cluded within the scope of the agreement and the claim of employees is denied.
AT&SF-Telgrs. Decision No. 873.
Where roadway gang was laid off one day per week for certain period,
claim is made by foreman who supervised this gang, and who was paid on a
monthly basis, for time deducted from his pay on the days on which the gang
was laid off. Decision-(a) If foreman is compensated on a monthly basis
for all services rendered, not including the accepted services provided for in
Section (h) of Article V, including time worked in excess of the regular hours
or day's assignment for the general force, it is clearly the intent of Section
(h) that such foreman would receive not less than the monthly rate so es-
tablished, provided he was ready and available to perform the service required;
(b) if foreman is compensated on a monthly basis and was paid overtime for
work performed after 8 hours and all work performed on Sundays and holi-
days, no valid claim can be made for time lost under the provisions of Section
(h) Article V, of the agreement. BR&P-MofW. Decision No. 896.
SUPPLEMENTS TO G. O. 27. Basis for applying.
See "Basis for Applying G. O. 27 and Supplements."
SUPPLEMENTS ISSUED BY RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION.
See "Railroad Administration-Rulings, orders, etc."
SUSPENSIONS. See "Discipline."
SWITCHING BY ROAD CREWS.
1. At Terminals.
2. En Route.
1. At Terminals.
Request for new method of computing compensation when required to do
switching at final terminal. Denied. NYC-E&F. Decision No. 11.
Claim of crew performing local service for additional compensation for
switching at terminal not in connection with making up or disposing of their
own train. Rule governing specifies "station switching" as part of the
service and makes no mention as to whether or not the switching must be
performed in connection with the making up or disposing of their own train.
Denied. OWRR&NCO-EF. Decision No. 101.
Prior to G. O. 27, payments for overtime, terminal delay and switching at
terminals were computed on basis of one-eighth of trip rate, or mileage of trip.
Under Sup. 16 trip basis was abolished but more favorable overtime basis re-
tained. Under Sup. 25 this more favorable overtime basis was abolished and
overtime was computed at three-sixteenths of mileage rate for one hundred
miles, but for terminal delay and switching at terminals, before overtime
begins, the rate on former basis of one-eighth of trip mileage, being higher,
was retained. In the application of Decision 2 the new rate based on one hun-
dred miles, being in excess of former rate, was established for such payments.
Employees contend these arbitrary payments should continue to be applied on
basis of the mileage of the trip rather than basic day of one hundred miles.
Denied. RF&P_C&T. Decision No. 56.
Claim of passenger brakeman for one day's pay at local freight rates, ac-
count being required to shift freight cars in order to turn their passenger
train on wye at end of trip. Board without jurisdiction, matter occurring
prior to passage of Transportation Act. N&W-Trainmen. Decision No. 75.
Request for rule to provide for payment of initial and terminal switching
260
delays on minute basis.
drew case from Board.
Parties at interest agreed upon settlement and with-
OWRR&N-E&F. Decision No. 314.
Claim for one hour switching by conductor and crew after arrival at ter-
minal in short turnaround passenger service, December 24, 1919. Decision-
Matter complained of having occurred before passage of Transportation Act,
by which Labor Board was created, Board decides that it is without jurisdiction
and application is, therefore, dismissed. NWPac-C&T. Decision No. 491.
Claim of crews in passenger service for one hour additional compensation
for turning trains at certain point. Employees contend that inasmuch as
switch engines are maintained at the point in question the practice of passenger
crews being required to turn their train and engine on the wye except in case
of emergency is not in conformity with the rules of the agreement and should
be discontinued. They agree, however, to perform the service provided they
are paid one hour additional compensation therefor in accordance with speci-
fied schedule rules. Carrier contends that while the movement of trains around
the wye at the point in question has the effect of turning them, it is so far as
the train and engine crew is concerned merely a change of route for the pur-
pose of backing the train into the station for the safe and more convenient un-
loading of passengers, etc., and cannot be construed as turning the train as re-
ferred to in the agreement. Decision-Board decides that the turning of trains
by crews in passenger service on the wye before their day's work is completed
is not a violation of the rules of the agreement, but also decides that in
accordance with the rules cited by the employees they are entitled to pay on the
basis of actual minutes at pro rata rates in addition to all other time mileage
made on the trip from the time train passes onto the first leg of the wye until
it passes onto the main track from the second leg of the wye. MK&T-EFC
&T. Decision No. 719.
2. En Route.
Claim for time consumed by through and irregular freight crews setting
out and picking up cars and trains at certain points. Board without jurisdic-
tion, matter having occurred before passage Transportation Act. SP-C&T.
Decision No. 320.
Claim of conductors for mine and switching run rate on Elizabeth-Blue
Ridge runs. For many years turnaround service has been operated between
Elizabeth and Tate (a distance of 40 miles each way) and mine or switching
run rate of pay was applied thereon. Effective May 30, 1920, this turnaround
service was discontinued and new runs put on to operate in through freight
service between Elizabeth and Copperhill (95 miles). On June 27, 1920, they
were made to run between Elizabeth and Blue Ridge (81 miles) and have
been paid through freight rates. Conductors contend that these changed runs
should still be paid the mine or switching run rate because of doing station
switching. Carrier takes the position that the only switching required is that
incident to destination placement, or pick up forward movement in the hand-
ling of short loads and empties in addition to through loads to and from sta-
tions and that switching of this kind should not be classified as mine or switch-
ing run work as covered by section (d), Article IV of the existing agreement,
and the through freight rate is therefore properly applied. Decision-Under
the provisions of the schedule and the instructions issued when the straight-
away runs were inaugurated, supplemented by the actual switching done at
stations, position of employees is sustained. L&N-C&T. Decision No. 481.
SWITCHTENDERS.
Increases granted by Labor Board to. See "Sec. 4, Art. VII, Decision 2."
Request for new rule providing that in filling switchtenders' positions
preference will be given to partially disabled former yard and train service em-
ployees. Denied. Present practice just and reasonable. N&W-Trainmen.
Decision No. 68.
Decreases, effective July 1, 1921, covering. See "Sec. 4, Article VII,
Decision No. 147."
Question as to proper classification of employees now classified as "switch-
man and baggage master." Prior to August 30, 1920, these employees
261
were classified as baggage masters and for a number of years they were
regularly assigned to handling several main line switches per day for the
movement of certain regular passenger trains. On August 30, 1920, at the
request of the trainmen's committee, following memorandum 16-27 of the
United States Railroad Administration, which provides "the term 'switch
tender' (ground switchman) is understood to apply to employees assigned
to handling one or more main line or lead switches in connection with
terminals wherever yard engines are maintained," the payroll classification
of these positions was changed to "switchman and baggage master" and
rate of pay was increased in accordance with rate applicable to switch
tenders under Decision No. 2. Employees claim the term "switch tender,'
as used in memorandum referred to, means an employee who is assigned
to handling a main line or lead switch, and that the employees involved
in this dispute are not so assigned in connection with a terminal where yard
engines are maintained, and further contend that these employees devote
four or more hours of their time to the work assigned to baggage masters,
and should, therefore, be classified as baggage masters.
Carrier takes posi-
tion that while employees in question do not handle switches for yard engines
or freight trains, they do handle one or more main line switches in connec-
tion with a terminal where a yard engine is maintained, and, therefore, come
within the scope of the memorandum of the Railroad Administration re-
ferred to. Decision-Position of carrier sustained. B&M-Bro.of RRSta Emp.
Decision No. 765.
TELEGRAPHERS AND TELEPHONERS.
Increases granted by Labor Board to. See "Art. V of Decision 2." See
"Art. V. of Decision 5."
Application of Decision 2 to. See "Decision 2-Application of:”
Petition of Order of Railroad Telegraphers for rehearing on Decision 2.
Denied. ORT. Decision No. 17.
Decreases, effective July 1, 1921, covering. See "Art. V of Decision 147."
Question whether Decision 119 terminates July 1, 1921, the agreements of
Order of Railroad Telegraphers with the carriers included in that decision;
employees contending that said decision in no wise affects the agreements, sup-
plements, orders, etc., of Railroad Administration, for reason that no dispute
regarding these matters, involving said organization, was before the Board at
time Decision 119 was rendered. Decision-Employees sustained; changes,
however, in such agreements may be made after required notice, either by
agreement of the parties or by decision of Board after conference and
proper reference in accord with Transportation Act; this decision not to in-
terfere with agreements reached nor with negotiations proceeding after proper
notice. Int. 4 to Decision No. 119.
TELEPHONE SWITCHBOARD OPERATORS.
Question as to whether position of telephone switchboard operator is a
clerical position as defined in rule 4 of Clerks' National Agreement, and whether
occupant thereof should be included in the clerical seniority roster. Position
in question was abolished and occupant thereof claims displacement rights over
junior clerical employees, which was denied by carriers on ground she held no
clerical seniority rights. Decision-Claim of employees denied. N&W-Clks.
Decision No. 284.
TELEPHONE-USE OF BY CONDUCTOR.
Claim of agent for pay under call rule account conductor of train, which
departed from station outside of period of agent's regular assignment, getting
clearance from dispatcher by telephone. Decision-Matter complained of hav-
ing occurred before passage of Transportation Act, 1920, and the Board being
of the opinion that this act was not intended to have a retroactive or retro-
spective effect decides it has no jurisdiction in this dispute and file is, therefore,
closed. CM&StP-Tel. Decision No. 563.
262
TERMINAL DELAY.
1. Initial
2. Final
1. Initial.
Where, under schedule rules, initial and final terminal delay has been paid
for independently, question as to proper application of pro rata and time and
one-half basis to such special payments. Board sets out in decision rules which
it considers just and reasonable. T&P-E&F. Decision No. 55.
2. Final.
Where, under schedule rules, initial and final terminal delay has been paid
for independently, question as to proper application of pro rata and time and
one-half basis to such special payments. Board sets out in decision rules
which it considers just and reasonable. T&P-E&F. Decision No. 55.
Prior to G. O. 27, payments for overtime, terminal delay and switching
terminals were computed on basis of one-eighth of trip rate or mileage of
trip. Under Sup. 16 trip basis was abolished but more favorable overtime
basis retained. Under Sup. 25 this more favorable overtime basis was abol-
ished and overtime was computed at three-sixteenths of mileage rate for one
hundred miles, but for terminal delay and switching at terminals, before
overtime begins, the rate on former basis of one-eighth of trip mileage, being
higher, was retained. In the application of Decision 2 the new rate based on one
hundred miles, being in excess of former rate, was established for such pay-
ments. Employees contend these arbitrary payments should continue to be
applied on basis of the mileage or trip, rather than basic day of one hundred
miles. Denied. RF&P-C&T. Decision No. 56.
TERMINAL LAYOVERS.
Where rule provides that when a sufficient number of men have been as-
signed to certain pool runs, no emergency trainmen will be put on, but train-
men already assigned, accumulated at other end of run, will be deadheaded at
company's expense when needed; or if emergency arises necessitating use of
emergency trainmen, and layover of the assigned trainmen at terminals ex-
ceeds eighteen hours, they will either be deadheaded or paid overtime for such
layover; claim is made by certain conductors for overtime for time so held,
alleging use of emergency crews in violation of the rules. Board without
jurisdiction, matter occurring before passage of Transportation Act. N&W
—C—(a) and (b). Decision No. 83.
TERMINALS. Relief at. See "Relief at Terminals."
1. Running in and out and through.
2. Changing or abolishing.
1. Running In and Out and Through.
Where engine was assigned for certain period to a through passenger
train running through and beyond terminal point, claim is made for additional
100 miles for the service beyond the terminal point; total mileage of entire
trip only being allowed. Board decides payment for time was properly made
in accordance with schedule rule. OWRR&NCO-EF. Decision No. 99.
Claim of crew for additional trip under schedule rule. Crew after leaving
its initial terminal had derailment necessitating running to first station west
of its terminal with part of train, then returning to scene of derailment, re-
railing car and taking rear of train back to its initial terminal, then returning
and picking up its train and making through trip to final destination. Decision-
Parties at interest agreed upon a settlement in this case and withdrew same
from consideration by Board. EP&SW-E&F. Decision No. 485.
2. Changing or Abolishing.
Question as to right of road to abolish a certain freight terminal and estab-
lish new one at another point. Right sustained. D&SL--EFCT. Decision
No. 31.
263
Question as to right of road to change home terminal for pool crews for
purpose of applying Art. 8, Sup. 25, Held Away from Home Terminal Rule.
Sustained. N&W-CT. Decision No. 59.
After removal of divisional terminal on October 1, 1919, carrier provided
shuttle service for the accommodation of employees, permitting them to
continue their residence at the old terminal point. On March 28, 1921, com-
pany gave notice of termination of shuttle service, effective June 10th, and dis-
continued the service on that date. Request is now made for restoration of
this shuttle train service. Decision-Board declines to order restoration
of this service, with the proviso that the three callers will be kept on at the
old terminal until August 10, 1921, at which time the continuation of the
three callers will be given consideration in conference between directly inter-
ested parties. MC-EFCT-SC. Decision No. 175.
TERMINAL MILEAGE ALLOWANCES. See "Arbitraries and Special
Allowances."
TERMINAL SWITCHING. See "Switching by Road Crews."
TERMINATION OF AGREEMENTS, ORDERS, ETC., OF R. R.
ADMINISTRATION. See "Decision 119, Addenda and Interpre-
tations Thereto."
THROUGH FREIGHT SERVICE.
Where rate for Santa Fe type engines under G. O. 27, being higher than
rates established by supplement 15 to G. O. 27 for similar weight on drivers
engines, was retained, question as to whether increase specified in Decision 2
should be applied to this retained higher rate, or to rate of supplement for
similar weight engines. Decision-Increase to be added to retained rate.
Sou-EF. Int. 18 to Decision No. 2.
TIE-UPS ON ROAD.
1. Under Hours of Service Law Rules
2. Under other rules, or in absence of rules
1. Under Hours of Service Law Rules.
Claim of conductor for continuous time account tied up under hours of
service law in less than fourteen hours, but held on duty until expiration of
fourteen-hour period before being relieved. Board without jurisdiction, matter
having occurred before passage of Transportation Act. N&W-C(c). De-
cision No. 83.
2. Under other rules, or in absence of rules.
Schedule rule provides for continuous time when tied up "at points where
eating and sleeping accommodations cannot be had." On particular occasion
in question when crew was tied up "eating and sleeping accommodations
could not be secured." Claim presented for full time under rule referred
Decision-Board denied claim for continuous time as crew was tied
up at a point "where ordinarily eating and sleeping accommodations can be
secured." D&SL-EFCT. Decisions Nos. 29 and 30.
to.
Claim of passenger brakeman for pay on a continuous time basis for period
of 46 hours tie-up between terminals account of washout, in accordance with
schedule rule which provides that passenger day begins at time of reporting
for duty for the initial trip and ends when relieved from duty. Carrier paid
for the service under rule providing that when trainmen are delayed between
terminals account of wreck, washout, or snow blockade, they shall be paid
for the first 8 hours held at pro rata rate in addition to time or miles made
that day and for each succeeding day will be allowed not less than 100 miles at
the rate for class of service in which engaged. Decision-Claim of employees
denied. GN-C&T. Decision No. 718.
264
TIME CLOCKS. Punching. See "Punching Time Clocks."
TIME LOST. Pay for. (See also "Reinstatements," "Discipline.")
1. Clerical and Station Forces.
(a) Sickness and personal reasons.
(b) Vacations and Holidays.
(c) Investigations and Suspensions.
(d) Reduction in working days.
(e) Denial of exercise of seniority.
(f) Strikes.
(g) Miscellaneous.
2. Dispatchers.
(a) Sickness and personal reasons.
3. Train and Engine Employees.
(a) Denial of exercise of seniority.
(b) Between dismissal and reinstatement.
(c) Miscellaneous.
4. Maintenance of Way Forces.
(a) Reduction in working days.
(b) Denial of exercise of seniority.
(c) Strikes.
(d) Between dismissal and reinstatement.
(e) Miscellaneous.
5. Shop Forces.
(a) Denial of exercise of seniority.
(b) Improper application of decisions, agreements, etc.
6. Express Employees.
(a) Sickness and personal reasons.
(b) Denial of exercise of seniority.
7. Telegraphers.
(a) Change in classification.
1. Clerical and Station Forces.
(a) Sickness and Personal Reasons.
Request of clerk for pay for time lost account sickness. Decision-In
absence of a rule in existing agreement relative to allowance of pay for
time lost, the carrier is to be the judge as to whether such allowance is to be
made-request of employees is, therefore, denied. SP-Clks. Decision No. 19.
Claim of clerks for pay for time lost account of sickness. Decision-
Board decides that under past practice employees in question are not entitled
to pay for the time off account of sickness and claim is, therefore, denied. St.
LSF-Clks. Decision No. 192. N&W. Decision No. 507. C&S. Decision
No. 508. SP. Decisions Nos. 554, 561, 562. PM. Decision No. 556. CCC&
StL. Decision No. 605. CB&Q. Decision No. 868. CB&Q. Decision No.
869.
Claim of clerks for time lost account sickness and death in immediate
family. Decision-Claims sustained on basis of instructions of Director, Divi-
sion of Operation, U. S. Railroad Administration, to effect that while National
Agreement is silent on this point, it was understood that existing practices as
to vacations and sick leave would remain in-effect. Decision is not to be con-
strued as indicating attitude of Labor Board on questions of pay for time lost
account sickness or vacations presented to it in submissions covering nego-
tiations conducted under Decision No. 119. C&NW-Clks. Decisions Nos.
235, 236 and 237.
Dispute in regard to alleged abrogation of past practice as to paying em-
265
ployees for time lost account sickness or personal reasons. Decision-Evidence
before the Board indicates that this dispute does not involve any specific
claims, for compensation. The question of pay for time lost account of sick-
ness or personal reasons was the subject of conference between the represen-
tatives of the employees and the carrier conducted in compliance with De-
cision No. 119, and the position of both parties in connection therewith is in-
cluded in the submission to the Board covering result of such conference. Case
is, therefore, removed from docket and file closed. StLSF-Clks. Decision
No. 474.
Dispute with reference to abrogation of past practice in regard to granting
pay for time off account of sickness. Decision-Request withdrawn by em-
ployees and file closed. PM-Clks. Decision No. 509.
Claim of clerk for pay for time absent account of sickness-no facts given.
Case withdrawn by employees and file closed. SP-Clks. Decision Nos. 737,
738. MK&T-Clks. Decision No. 674.
Claim of certain clerks for pay for time absent from duty account personal
business. Decision-Board decides that under past practice employees in
question are not entitled to pay for time off account of personal business and
claim is, therefore, denied. N&W-Clks. Decision No. 786.
Claim of clerks for pay for time off duty account illness. Decision-At
hearing conducted by Board, employees and carrier agreed upon a settlement.
Case is, therefore, removed from docket and file closed. C&NW-Clks. De-
cisions Nos. 743, 744, 745, 746, 747, 748, 749, 750, 751, 752, 753, 754, 755.
Claim of certain clerk for pay for time absent from duty account of sick-
ness. Employees contend that under past practice, this employee is entitled to
pay for the time he was absent. Decision-Under the carrier's interpretation,
the instructions issued by the Director, Division of Operation, U. S. Railroad
Administration, in regard to payment for time lost account of vacations and
sick leave, would not mean anything and were not intended to mean anything.
The Board cannot adopt this view and inasmuch as the carrier has not denied
that it was the practice to pay employees in the class of service in which the
claimant was engaged for time absent from duty account of sickness, the
Board decides that this employee is entitled to pay for the period he was absent
and shall be compensated therefor. EP&SW-Clks. Decision No. 860.
Claim of certain clerk for pay for time absent from duty account of death
in family. Decision-Board reaffirms its direction in previous decisions that
pending decision of the Board, orders, agreements and decisions of the U. S.
Railroad Administration shall remain in effect unless or until changed by mutual
agreement between the employees and the carrier. It appears that the claim
presented by the employees has not been considered in conference by the car-
rier and employees on a basis of practices in effect prior to Federal control.
The Board, therefore, remands this dispute to employees and carrier for con-
sideration on basis of past practice, and in event of failure to agree thereon, it
may be resubmitted for decision. This decision is based upon rules of the
Clerks' National Agreement and is not to be construed as indicating the atti-
tude of the Board on the question of pay for time absent account of per-
sonal reasons. StLSF-Clks. Decision No. 874.
Claim of certain clerical employees for time lost account of illness. De-
cision-The Board has heretofore decided that pending decisions by the Board,
the instructions of the Director, Division of Operation, U. S. Railroad Admin-
istration, shall remain in effect. It appears that the claim presented has not
been considered in conference by the employees and carrier on basis of past
practice, and the Board, therefore, remands this dispute to the employees for
consideration on this basis. In the event of failure to agree, it may be re-
submitted for decision. This decision is based upon the rules of the National
Agreement and the instructions of the Director, Division of Operation, U. S.
Railroad Administration, and is not to be construed as indicating the attitude
of the Board on the question of pay for time lost account of sickness, re-
manded to the employees and carrier in Decision No. 630. StLSF-Clks.
Decisions Nos. 875, 876, 877, 878, 879.
Claim of clerk for time lost account of illness in family. Case withdrawn
by employees and file closed. FW&DC-Clks. Decision No. 911.
266
(b) Vacations and Holidays.
Claim of daily rated employees for pay for Armistice Day (which was
declared a legal holiday at the point in question) on which day they were no-
tified not to work. Decision-The language of rule 66 of the Clerks' National
Agreement is understood by the Board to refer to the holidays designated in
rule 64 of said agreement, unless other holidays are mutually agreed upon. In
lieu of any such agreement the Board decides that under this rule daily rated
employees are entitled to pay for Armistice Day. PM-Clks. Decision No.
574. MC-Clks. Decision No. 764.
Request for restoration of past practice said to exist in certain general
offices of letting clerical employees off the afternoon of the day before Christ-
mas without deduction in pay, and claim for pay for clerical employees who
were denied this privilege, December 24, 1920. Decision-Request denied. St
L&SF-Clks. Decision No. 610.
Claim of transfer foreman for pay for two weeks actual vacation taken
in year 1920. Employees claim that prior to Federal control it was the
practice of carrier to grant employee involved an annual vacation of two
weeks with pay and to assign another employee to his position during his
absence. Carrier contends that it was not the past practice to grant annual
vacation with pay to employee in question, but that the practice was to grant
this employee a vacation when arrangements could be made to take care of
the duties of his position without additional expense, but that in the year
1920 conditions at the station were such that it was impossible to grant
this employee an annual vacation with pay without assigning another em-
ployee to his position at an additional expense. During the time this employee
was absent on his vacation another employee had to be assigned to his
position. Decision Board decides that under past practice employee in
question is not entitled to pay for two weeks vacation actually taken in
the year 1920 and claim is, therefore, denied. SP-Clks. Decision No. 375.
Claim of clerical employee for pay for two weeks vacation actually taken
in 1920. Decision-Board decides on basis of facts before it that under
past practice the employee in question is not entitled to pay for the two
weeks vacation taken in the year 1920. SP-Clks. Decision No. 941.
Claim of clerk for pay for vacation during year 1921. Case withdrawn by
employees and file closed. SouPac-Clks. Decision No. 692.
Claim of certain yard clerks for reimbursement of money deducted to cover
vacation allowed in the year 1919. Case withdrawn by employees and file
closed. B&O-Clks. Decision No. 870.
(c) Investigations and Suspensions.
Claim of check clerk for pay for time lost between date of dismissal and
date of reinstatement-cause of dismissal not stated. Decision-Claim denied.
DL&W-Clks. Decision No. 137.
Claim for pay for time lost by clerk covering period under suspension. De-
cision-Claim denied. Penn-Clks. Decisions Nos. 264, 265.
Request for reinstatement of clerk to any position in carrier's service
to which her seniority rights entitle her with seniority unimpaired and pay
for period it is claimed she was held out of service pending investigation.
As a result of the addition of other duties to position of file clerk this
employee was displaced, and sought to exercise her seniority to displace
a junior employee in the service. This request was refused because she would
not agree to remain in the position for a period sufficient in the judgment
of the management to justify awarding her the position. Case was taken up
by committee and investigation requested under Rule 32 of the Clerks' Na-
tional Agreement. Investigation was held in which it was developed, to
the satisfaction of the employees' representative, that this clerk was not
qualified to hold the file clerk's position with the added duties. Subsequent
to the investigation the carrier agreed to permit her to retain her seniority
and apply for any bulletined position. Employees now request that this
clerk be paid for time held out of service prior to date of investigation.
•
267
Decision-Board decides that request for pay for time lost is denied. How-
ever, if said employee desires to return to the carrier's service she shall be
permitted to retain her seniority unimpaired, and be assigned to the first
bulletined position to which her seniority entitles her. StLSF-Clks.
cision No. 576.
(d) Reduction in Working Days.
De-
Claim of certain employee for reimbursement for time lost incident to re-
duction in days of regular weekly assignment. Account decrease in business.
certain employees were required to work 4½ days a week or 20 days per
month which resulted in a reduction in their earnings. Employees contend
that this action on the part of the carrier was in conflict with Rule 66 of
the Clerks' National Agreement. Decision-Board decides that reduction of
the day's work below six per week was in violation of Rule 66 of the agree-
ment and that the clerk in question shall be reimbursed for the difference be-
tween the compensation he has received since reduction went into effect and
compensation he would have received if he had been permitted to work the
full number of hours constituting his regular assignment. G&SI-Clerks.
Decision No. 572.
Claim of certain daily rates employees for pay for Saturdays during cer-
tain period on which days they were notified in advance not to work. It ap-
pears that following conference with representatives of the employees ar-
rangements were made for one of each of the seven gangs handling freight
at the station in question to lay off one day each alternate week. Subsequently
it was arranged to close the warehouse on Saturday of each week. Employees
claim that this latter arrangement was made without conference or their con-
sent, whereas carrier states, and it is not denied, that at least one of the com-
mitteemen representing the employees at the point in question stated that the
arrangement for closing the freight house on Saturday of each week was
more desirable than laying off one gang each alternate week. Decision-
Board decides that inasmuch as the employees accepted this arrangement
without complaint and made no protest until five days after the six-day week
had been restored, claim of employees is denied. PM-Clerks. Decision
No. 640.
In order to effect certain economies and avoid a reduction in force, carrier
circulated a petition among the employees for purpose of securing their consent
to a reduction in the number of working days to five per week, which petition
was signed unanimously and the five-day-per-week assignment placed in effect.
Employees are now contending that this change in the weekly assignment,
below six days, constituted a violation of Rule 66, and request that employees
involved be reimbursed for the day of each week that they were laid off during
the period said arrangement was in effect. Decision-Claim of employees
denied. LV-Clks. Decision No. 732.
(e) Denial of Exercise of Seniority.
Where yard clerk, whose position was abolished January 10, 1921, applied
for right to exercise his seniority to position of assistant timekeeper, but was
not assigned thereto until January 21, 1921, claim is made for compensation
for time lost in the interim. Carrier states that position of assistant time-
keeper required a familiarity with instructions governing the application of
rates of pay and a knowledge of rules covering working conditions; that at
the time this employee, who had had no previous experience in this particular
work, applied for the position certain monthly reports were in course of prepa-
ration, and it did not consider that he had sufficient fitness and ability to assume
the duties of the position at that time, and that as soon as these reports were
completed he was assigned to said position. Decision-Evidence before the
Board shows that the employee in question had the requisite şeniority, fitness
and ability to satisfactorily perform the duties of assistant timekeeper, and he
is therefore entitled to the rate of the position for the period January 11th to
20th, inclusive. CM&StP-Clerks. Decision No: 475.
268
Claim of clerk for position of bill clerk, and reimbursement for time lost
since date she was laid off account of reduction in force, while several em-
ployees holding less seniority were retained in the service. Decision-Evidence
indicates that this employee had sufficient fitness and ability to fill the position
of bill clerk and should have been assigned to same when released from service
on account of reduction in force. Board therefore decides that she shall be
reinstated to said position with seniority rights unimpaired and paid for all
time lost since date she was laid off, less any amount she may have earned at
other employment. PM-Clerks. Decision No. 577.
Question as to right of clerk in the East Providence enginehouse, whose
position was abolished, to exercise his seniority at the Providence enginehouse,
which right was denied by carrier on the ground that these two enginehouses
were not in the same seniority district. Decision-Board decides that this
clerk shall be permitted to exercise his seniority to any position within the
scope of the Clerks' National Agreement in the mechanical department on the
Providence Division in accordance with the rules of said agreement and shall
be reimbursed for time lost account being refused the right to do so when
his position was abolished, less any amount he may have earned at other
employment since date he was laid off. NYNH&H-Clerks. Decision
No. 578.
Claim of certain employee, whose position was abolished, for right to
exercise his seniority to position of call boy, which right was denied by carrier
on the ground that he did not possess sufficient fitness and ability to qualify
for said position. Decision-Board decides that employee in question did have
sufficient fitness and ability to justify his assignment to the position of call
boy, and that he shall therefore be assigned to said position and reimbursed
for all monetary loss sustained since the date he made application therefor,
less any amount earned in other employment since that date. LV-Clks. De-
cision No. 735.
(f) Strikes.
Claim of clerical employees for time lost while temporarily laid off during
the period of an unauthorized strike of train and engine service employees.
Denied. Erie-Clerks. Decision No. 197. DL&W-Clerks. Decision
No. 198.
(g) Miscellaneous.
Claim of certain employees for time lost in the months of March, April,
May and August, 1920, account election service, these employees being re-
quired to serve at election polls in compliance with notice from State Board
of Election Commissioners on various days in the months named, and were
not paid by the carrier for the time absent from duty. They were, however,
paid by the Board of Election Commissioners for each day they served, and
now claim compensation from the carrier at their regular rate of pay for time
they were absent from duty. Decision-Claim denied. StLSF-Clerks. De-
cision No. 473.
Dispute with reference to preservation of rates for certain clerical em-
ployees. Supplement No. 7 to G. O. 27 established for certain clerical em-
ployees rates of pay which were less than those established by G. O. 27, but
in conference with representatives of the employees the carrier agreed to
preserve the higher rates established by G. O. 27, which agreement was ap-
proved by the Regional Director. Subsequently the Federal Manager issued
instructions that all rates established by G. O. 27 which were higher than
those authorized by Supplement 7 thereto should be reduced when the positions
to which they applied became vacant. Employees contend that action of the
carrier in reducing the rates of the positions involved is in violation of Rule 86
of the Clerks' National Agreement, Decision No. 2 of the Labor Board, and
the Transportation Act, and request that the rates of pay established by
G. O. 27 be restored and that the employees who suffered reduction in wages
be reimbursed for monetary loss sustained. Decision-Board decides that rates
269
established by G. O. 27 and preserved by agreement between representatives
of the employees and the carrier were the rates established by or under the
authority of the U. S. Railroad Administration in effect 12:01 a. m., March 1,
1920, and should have remained in effect until changed by mutual agreement
or decision of the Board. The subsequent action authorized by the Federal
Manager, but without conference or agreement, seems to have been an after-
thought and while in equity may have had some justification, it was not so
properly handled as to give it full force and effect. The employees involved
shall, therefore, be reimbursed for the difference between the rates of pay they
received while holding the positions affected and the rates which should have
been established for such positions by applying the decisions of the Labor
Board to the rates in effect 12:01 a. m., March 1, 1920. Sou Pac-Clerks.
Decision No. 622.
Question as to whether position of personal stenographer to shop accountant
at certain point should be included within the scope of the Clerks' National
Agreement as defined in Rule 1, Article I thereof. Decision-Board decides
that position in question was included within the scope of the agreement and
that the employee who made application therefor should have been assigned,
and she shall therefore be reimbursed for the monetary loss sustained by
reason of not being assigned to the position from February 10 to April 15,
1921, the date the position was abolished less any amount earned in other
employment during that period. CM&S -Clerks. Decision No. 626.
2. Dispatchers.
(a) Sickness and Personal Reasons.
Claim of dispatchers for pay for time lost account sickness. Denied.
I&GN-ATDA. Decision No. 51. Sou-ATDA. Decision No. 122. Wabash
-ATDA. Decision No. 248. C&NW-ATDA. Decision No. 676. L&N—
ATDA. Decision No. 785.
Claim of train dispatcher for time absent account of sickness. Employees
contend that it has been the practice of the carrier to pay division officers for
time lost account of sickness and, therefore, in accordance with rule which
provides that chief, assistant chief, regular trick, and regular relief dis-
patchers will be extended the same treatment as is the practice to accord to
other division officers account of sickness, the dispatcher in question should be
extended the same treatment. Carrier takes the position that it has not been
the practice to pay division officers for time lost account of sickness when
necessary to employ someone in their place at additional expense and further,
that the working conditions of dispatchers are on an 8-hour basis while other
division officers are paid on a monthly basis, and therefore they are not en-
titled to the same treatment. Decision-Under the carrier's construction of the
rule the rule would not mean anything and was not intended to mean any-
thing. The Board cannot take such a view. On the contrary it would appear
that the Director, Division of Operation, U. S. Railroad Administration, con-
sidered train dispatchers as division officers and entitled to the same treatment
as was accorded such officers. Adopting this view and giving due considera-
tion to fact that carrier states its inability to show a single case where pay for
time lost account of sickness was denied division officers under like circum-
stances Board decides that position of employees is sustained. D&RG-ATDA.
Decision No. 564.
Claim of dispatcher for pay for time absent from duty account sickness.
Carrier takes position that it has never been the practice to pay division officers
for time lost account of sickness, when it was necessary to employ someone else
in their place, and contends that the employee in question was accorded the
same treatment as accorded to division officers for loss of time account sick-
ness. Decision-Board decides that under past practice this dispatcher is not
entitled to pay for time absent from duty, and claim of employees is, therefore,
denied. L&M-ATDA. Decision No. 834.
270
3. Train and Engine Employees.
(a) Denial of Exercise of Seniority.
Claim of fireman for time lost account refusal to permit him to displace an
engineer on a hostling position. Parties at interest agreement upon settlement
and withdrew case from Board. OWRR&N-E&F. Decision No. 317.
(b) Between Dismissal and Reinstatement.
Request for reinstatement of fireman with pay for time lost account re-
fusing to double back on run, claiming that he desired rest and had given
proper notice in accordance with bulletin posted by carrier. Decision-Board
feels that this fireman endeavored to comply with the terms of the bulletin by
notifying conductor that he did not wish to double back before leaving initial
terminal, but conductor failed to notify chief dispatcher until arrival at inter-
mediate point. However, on account of the conductor's failure to notify the
chief dispatcher so that necessary arrangements could have been made, the
fireman should have endeavored to make the return trip rather than cause
delay to the train. Evidence shows that carrier offered to reinstate this fire-
man about a month after his dismissal but declined to pay for time lost.
Committee representing the fireman proposed that he be permitted to return
to work and refer question of pay to the Labor Board. The Board believes
poor judgment was exercised in declining this proposition since the offer made
by the carrier to reinstate this fireman without pay indicates that it was not
felt that his permanent dismissal was warranted. Nearly a year later the car-
rier reinstated this fireman, thus in effect complying with the employees'
original request, which leaves for the Board's consideration only the request
for compensation for time lost. This fireman was out of service for about a
year, during which time his normal earnings as a fireman would have been
about $2000.00. However, it is understood that he was employed as a laborer
by other concerns and his loss thereby reduced to the extent of such earnings.
The Board decides, therefore, that this fireman shall be paid the sum of
$600.00 which partially compensates for his actual loss due to dismissal for an
irregularity for which he was not wholly to blame. OWR&N-E&F. De-
cision No. 550.
(c) Miscellaneous.
Claim of freight conductor filling temporary vacancy in passenger service
for time lost while waiting for return of his caboose which was out on the
line, when displaced in passenger service by return of regular man. Sustained.
D&SL-EFCT. Decision No. 35.
الرحيم
4. Maintenance of Way Forces.
(a) Reduction in Working Days.
Where carrier, for purpose of reducing expenses, laid off certain junior
laborers and carpenters and certain other entire gangs, also reduced the num-
ber of days worked by other gangs and foremen one and two days per week,
employees contend that such method was contrary to Section (1), Article V of
the National Agreement, and claim that man affected should be compensated
for all time lost. Decision-Board decides carrier did not violate provisions
of agreement in making reductions outlined, and claim for time lost is, there-
fore, denied. However, when it becomes necessary to reduce expenses the
Board suggests that conference be held in effort to work out a method of
reduction that will be mutually agreeable to both parties. CI&W-MofW.
Decision No. 334.
Question as to whether Section 1, Article V of the national maintenance
of way agreement was violated when working days were reduced to 5 per
week after extensive reduction in force had been made. Employees contend
that rule referred to was violated in reducing number of days per week, and
employees involved should be paid for all time so laid off. Decision-Board
decides that carrier did not violate the meaning and intent of Section 1, Ar-
ticle V of the agreement and therefore denies the claim for payment account
271
of reduction in the days per week as outlined. Cenof NJ-MofW.
No. 519.
Decision
Question as to right of carrier to lay off entire force of laborers and their
gang leaders in the stores supply department on Saturday of each week in
order to curtail expenses. Employees contend that carrier has no right to lay
off the entire force one day each week when the proper reduction in expense
can be accomplished by first laying off the junior men in the gangs, citing
Section 1, Article V of the national agreement in support of their contention,
and claiming that the men in question are entitled to pay for each and every
Saturday lost account of said reduction. Decision-Board decides that carrier
did not violate the meaning and intent of Section 1, Article V, and denies pay-
ment account reduction in the days per week as outlined. CI&L-Mof W.
Decision No. 771.
Where roadway gang was laid off one day per week for certain period, claim
is made by foreman who supervised this gang, and who was paid on a monthly
basis, for time deducted from his pay on the days on which the gang was laid
off. Decision-(a) If foreman is compensated on a monthly basis for all ser-
vices rendered, not including the accepted services provided for in Section
(h) of Article V, including time worked in excess of the regular hours or
day's assignment for the general force, it is clearly the intent of Section (h)
that such foreman would receive not less than the monthly rate so established,
provided he was ready and available to perform the service required; (b) if
foreman is compensated on a monthly basis and was paid overtime for work
performed after 8 hours and all work performed on Sundays and holidays, no
valid claim can be made for time lost under the provisions of Section (h)
Article V, of the agreement. BR&P-MofW. Decision No. 896.
(b) Denial of Exercise of Seniority.
Claim of foreman for compensation during period from December 19th to
January 3d, when extra gang over which he had charge was laid off. Deci-
sion-Rules quoted in employees' position expressly provide for retention of
senior men in case of force reduction or temporary assignment; however, it
does not appear from the evidence that the employee in question made the
proper effort to take advantage of these provisions, and claim for compen-
sation for period laid off is therefore denied. N&W-MofW. Decision
No. 231.
Question as to right of pumper filling second shift at certain point to exer-
cisę his seniority rights to first-shift position when the second-shift position was
abolished. This pumper, although holding seniority over the first-trick man, was
denied the right to displace first-trick pumper, but not denied the right to
displace pumper with the least seniority rights in the seniority district in
question. Subsequently, in disposing of this grievance the management reached
agreement with the organization that the last sentence of Section (e), Article
II of the National Maintenance of Way Agreement would apply to pumpers, it
being the understanding that said agreement would establish a precedent for
handling future cases, and carrier declined to honor claim for actual wage loss
to the second trick pumper from the time his trick was cut off until he was
placed upon the first trick. Employees are now contending that under Section
(c-2) of Article II of the agreement that this pumper should have been
placed on the first-trick position and therefore claim that he is entitled to
time lost. Decision-Claim denied. N&W-MofW. Decision No. 521.
Claim of certain B&B mechanics for wages from the date B&B gang was
organized to the date gang was disbanded. Employees in question were tem-
porarily out of the service due to a reduction in force and carrier claims to
have mailed to all eligible employees, including the employees in question, a
bulletin announcing that a new paint gang would be put on, extending them the
opportunity to exercise their seniority to positions in the new gang if they so
desired. These employees claim that they did not receive the notice and as
soon as they were aware that the gang was put on they made application for
the positions but were denied employment in said gang account of full quota
having been obtanied and they, therefore, claim that they are entitled to the
time lost. Decision-Claim denied. NC&StL-MofW. Decision No. 603.
272
(c) Strikes.
Request for reinstatement of foreman, and pay for time lost of said fore-
man and other members of his gang for period out of service from April 13th
to May 25th, 1920, when they quit the service of their own accord, refusing
to perform certain work which had been contracted out and which work the
contractor was unable to perform with his own men account of a strike of
city carpenters. The contract when made stipulated that in event the strike
had not terminated in time for said contractor to perform the work that the
carrier would furnish the necessary labor and the contractor would furnish
necessary material and supervision. When the railroad employees were de-
tailed to perform the work and learned that they were filling the place of men
out on strike and that work was to be supervised by contractor they refused
to perform the work under such conditions, the foreman agreeing with his
men and quitting the service with them. After investigation the men were
reinstated, and claim is now made for pay for time lost and for reinstatement
of the foreman. Decision-Board decides upon evidence submitted that men in
question, including foreman, quit the service of their own accord, and there-
fore denies payment for time lost. It takes cognizance of statement em-
bodied in agreed statement of facts that the foreman has not on his own
part requested reinstatement or reemployment, or signified to any official of
carrier that anyone else was authorized to do so in his behalf, and decides,
therefore, that carrier is justified in position taken. CCC&StL-MofW.
Decision No. 257.
Request for pay for time lost by certain carpenters account of illegal
strike of train and engine service employees, which strike also involved certain
station employees, shopmen, etc., who either actually participated or threatened
to participate therein, the B&B carpenters under the supervision of the master
carpenters were directed to perform certain duties in connection with the care
and maintenance of bunk cars which were being used for purpose of housing
the railroad police department employees. The employees in question refused
to perform the service to which assigned and as practically all of the carpenter
force together with the foreman were engaged in work of a similar character
in connection with this strike there were no other duties to which these em-
ployees could be assigned during the period of the strike. Decision-Claim for
time lost is denied. PaRR-MofW. Decision No. 517.
(d) Between Dismissal and Reinstatement.
Dispute in regard to payment of time lost by extra gang foreman who was
dismissed from service and later reemployed by carrier. Case withdrawn by
employees and file closed. TP-MofW. Decision No. 706.
(e) Miscellaneous.
Question as to right of carrier to lay off carpenter gangs and contract for
building of new depot by a construction company, employees contending that
the national agreement covers all bridge and building work; that these car-
penters are employed for and assigned to that particular kind of work; that
they have seniority rights to this work over any construction company, and
that they should, therefore, be paid their regular salaries for length of time
depot was under construction. Decision-Board decides carrier did not violate
the provisions of the agreement, and claim is, therefore, denied. This decis-
ion applicable only to case in question. M&O-MofW. Decision No. 328.
Claim of pumper for adjustment in rate of pay based on provisions of Sec-
tion 7, Article III, of Decision No. 2. On March 1, 1920, this employee was
receiving an hourly rate of pay, which rate was increased under Section 7,
Article III, of Decision No. 2. On November 1, 1920, under Section (a-12)
Article V, of the Maintenance of Way Agreement, a monthly rate was estab-
lished on the basis of the hourly rate in effect prior to May 1, 1920, (the effec-
tive date of Decision No. 2) plus $20.40, as provided in Decision No. 2, for
monthly rated employees. Employees claim that the monthly rate should have
been determined by applying the provisions of Section (a-12), Article V, of the
agreement to the hourly rate established in accordance with Section 7, Article
III, of Decision No. 2. Decision-Board decides that the carrier was justified
273
in establishing a monthly rate for the employee in question in accordance with
Section (a-12) of Article V, but that such monthly rate should have been
predicated upon the hourly rate and assignment in effect at the time such
change was made, and the employee in question shall be reimbursed to the ex-
tent he has suffered a wage loss account the improper application for the period
from July 1, 1921, until the proper adjustment is made. C&NW-MofW.
Decision No. 898.
Dispute concerning establishment of monthly rate of pay for certain engine
watchman. On March 1, 1920, this employee was receiving an hourly rate of
pay, which rate was increased in accordance with Section 8, Article III, of De-
cision No. 2. On March 15, 1920, under Section (a-12) Article V, of the
Maintenance of Way Agreement, a monthly rate was established on the basis
of the hourly rate in effect prior to May 1, 1920, (the effective date of De-
cision 2) plus $20.40, as provided in Decision No. 2, for monthly rated em-
ployees. Employees claim that the monthly rate should have been determined
by applying the provisions of Section (a-12) of Article V, of the agreement to
the hourly rate established in accordance with Section 9, Article III, of De-
cision No. 2. Decision-Board decides that the carrier was justified in es-
tablishing a monthly rate for the employee in question in accordance with Sec-
tion (a-12) of Article V, but that such monthly rate should have been predi-
cated upon the hourly rate and assignment in effect at the time such change
was made, and the employee in question shall be reimbursed to the extent he has
suffered a wage loss account the improper application for the period from July
1, 1921, until the proper adjustment is made. C&NW-MofW. Decision No.
899.
5. Shop Forces.
(a) Denial of Exercise of Seniority.
Request for reinstatement and pay for time lost of certain machinist who
it is claimed was granted verbal leave of absence by the foreman to conduct
a campaign in connection with his candidacy for Congress, but who upon
being defeated in the election and returning to service was denied employment
on basis that he did not secure a proper leave of absence and was therefore
considered as having voluntarily left the service. Decision-Board decides
that this machinist shall be restored to his former position with seniority
rights unimpaired and paid for all time lost, deducting any amount that he
may have earned while engaged in other employment during the period out
of the service. GN-ShopCrafts. Decision No. 586.
Question as to whether certain employee formerly employed as car inspector
and later demoted to car repairer shall be reinstated to the position of inspec-
tor or whether this employee, who subsequent to his demotion to car repairer
was laid off account reduction in force, shall be reinstated to position of car
repairer and paid for time lost. Decision-Claim for reinstatement as car
inspector is denied. However, seniority accumulated by this employee as car
inspector should have been considered when reducing the force, and as in
accordance with seniority rules he was not the youngest man in the service at
the time of the reduction, he should be reinstated to position of car repairer
with seniority rights unimpaired and paid for time lost as car repairer since
date of his removal from the service, less any amount he may have earned in
other employment during such period. AnnArbor RR-AFofRRW. Decision
No. 587.
+
Request of machinist for reinstatement to position he held prior to being
injured, and claim for pay for time lost since date he applied for reinstatement.
Decision-This claim was presented by the employees in ex-parte form. Upon
receipt of the submission, a copy was forwarded to the carrier and an oppor-
tunity extended them to furnish their position in connection with the claim
that had been filed by the employees, but to date (April 26, 1922) the carrier
has made no reply. In accordance with the employees request, an oral hearing
was conducted at which only the representatives of the employees were present,
and who submitted testimony in behalf of the employee's claim. The evidence
shows that the employee in question received a severe injury while in the car-
rier's service, which incapacitated him for a considerable time; that he was
274
compensated a certain amount by the claim department, and was assured that
he would be restored to his old position, but upon making application for it,
he was denied reemployment, while men younger in the service were retained.
The Board, therefore, decides that this employee shall be restored to his former
position with seniority rights unimpared and pay for all time lost since the date
he applied for reemployment to the date he is restored to the service, less any
amount he may have earned in other employment during this period. DM&N
-ShpCrf. Decision No. 927.
(b) Improper Application of Decisions, Agreements, Etc.
Question as to whether the provisions of Decision No. 222 and addenda
thereto shall be applied to car department employees in the manner provided
therein, and from the effective date therein specified. (These car department
employees represented by the American Federation of Railroad Workers were
made parties to Decision No. 119 by Addendum 1 thereto, but were not
parties to Decision No. 222.) Upon the issuance of Decision No. 222, the
management applied the provisions specified therein to all classes of employees
enumerated, regardless of organization affiliation, carrier taking the position
that it would have been inconsistent to have continued more favorable working
conditions to employees who were members of the American Federation of
Railroad Workers, and to have denied the more favorable conditions to em-
ployees who were members of the other organizations, who, in some instances,
worked in the same shop and in other instances worked in the same gang.
Employees contend that the working conditions in effect immediately prior to
the negotiations conducted with the carrier should remain in full force and
effect until superseded or amended by specific decision of the Board upon
the disputed rules submitted to it by said American Federation of Railroad
Workers and the management, and that the car department employees be
reimbursed to the extent that they have suffered a wage loss account of
alleged improper application of Decision No. 222. Decision-Based upon evi-
dence submitted and circumstances cited in this case, the Board is of the
opinion that it would have been irregular and would undoubtedly have caused
considerable dissatisfaction to have established different working conditions for
employees who had previously enjoyed the same working conditions and who
are at present and have been in the past considered in the same general class.
and the Board therefore decides that the provisions of Decision No. 222 and
addenda thereto shall apply to the car workers in the same manner and from
the same effective date as if they had been included in original Decision No.
222 and addenda thereto. W&LE-AFRW. Decision No. 893.
6. Express Employees.
(a) Sickness and Personal Reasons.
Claim of certain express employees for time lost account sickness. Deci-
sion-Claim denied. ARE-Clerks. Decisions Nos. 685 and 686.
(b) Denial of Exercise of Seniority.
Claim of messenger, whose position was abolished, for time lost in con-
nection with the exercise of his seniority rights over junior employee. Em-
ployees state that this employee made a special trip to the superintendent's
office for the purpose of having an understanding and being allowed to exer-
cise his seniority rights over employees younger in the service; that the super-
intendent was not in the office and the chief clerk did not have the authority
to allow him to exercise his seniority over junior employees and he was com-
pelled to lose one trip and contend, therefore, that inasmuch as this employee
endeavored to the full extent of his ability to adjust the matter and found
that no one was authorized by the superintendent to act in the matter he
should be paid for the loss in wages he was compelled to sustain. Decision-
Evidence before the Board indicates that the employee in question was avail-
able for service on the trip for which claim is presented and that his loss in com-
pensation was sustained through no fault of his own, therefore the Board de-
cides that he shall be reimbursed for the trip lost in the exercise of seniority on
the day in question. ARE-Clks. Decision No. 934.
275
7. Telegraphers
(a) Change in Classification.
Certain agencies which were included in Telegraphers' Agreement were
reclassified as supervisory agents by carrier and certain changes made in their
wages and working conditions with the understanding that under the designa-
tion of supervisory agents they would not be subject to the provisions of the
Telegraphers' Agreement. The agreement referred to contains a provision
that it shall remain in effect until 30 days notice has been given by either
party to the other party requesting a change in same, and employees are con-
tending that as carrier failed to serve the 30 day notice or hold conference with
the employees before changing the classification of the agents referred to it
violated the provisions of their agreement and they, therefore, request that
rates of pay and working conditions of the agents at the stations in question
as established by the agreement be restored and the employees affected re-
imbursed for monetary loss sustained. Carrier takes position that growth of
business at the stations in question justified the rearrangement of station
forces and that duties and responsibilities of the former agents were changed
sufficiently to warrant designating them as supervisory agents; that super-
visory agents do not come within the scope of the Transportation Act or the
jurisdiction of the Labor Board and that the telegraphers' committee had no
right to attempt to represent them. Decision-Board states that the question
presented to it in this dispute is whether or not the action of the carrier was
in violation of the terms of the agreement between the carrier and its employees
in telegraph service, and it is decided that under the rule of the agreement the
agents at the stations named should not have been excluded from the provisions
thereof until 30 days notice had been served upon the representatives of the
employees in telegraph service, requesting that the change be made, or until
conference had been held with the employees' committee, or until handled in the
manner provided in the Transportation Act. The Board does not undertake
to pass on whether or not these agents are supervisory, but merely that in
view of said positions having been included in the agreement between the em-
ployees and the carrier, they should not have been excluded therefrom unless
or until the provisions of the agreement and the Transportation Act have been
complied with. GCL-Tel. Decision No. 930.
TRAIN DISPATCHERS. See "Dispatchers."
TRAIN SERVICE EMPLOYEES.
Increases granted by Labor Board to. See "Art. VII, Decision 2." See
"Art. VI, Decision 5."
Application of Decision 2 to.
Application of Decision 119 to.
Decreases, effective July 1, 1921,
TRANSFERS.
See "Decision 2-Application of."
See "Decision 119-Application of."
covering. See "Art. VII, Decision 147."
Claim of certain employee for refund of cash fare paid for trip be-
tween certain points. Employee in question made request for transfer to
another point, which request was granted by carrier and arrangements
made for the transfer and bulletining of his run. Request for transportation
for himself and family was made, but employee left prior to receipt of the
transportation, and is now claiming refund of the amount of cash fare
paid by him for the trip in question. Decision-Evidence indicates that the
Express Company made request upon the railroad over which this em-
ployee traveled for refund of the fare he was required to pay, which re-
quest was declined, and as it is shown that this employee was transferred
for personal reasons and that there was no reason so far as the carrier
was concerned why he could not have waited until receipt of the transporta-
tion, claim of the employees is denied. ARE-Clks. Decision No. 909.
Where certain drivers in the vehicle service were transferred from one
stable to another within the same seniority district, but no change made in the
duties or salaries of the positions. Employees are contending that the carrier
276
was not justified in making such transfer against the wishes of the employees
in question. Decision-Board decides that the action of the carrier in trans-
ferring employees in question was not in conflict with the rules governing
the working conditions of employees in vehicle service and claim of employees
is denied. ARE-RyED-CC&H. Decision No. 939.
TRANSPORTATION ACT.
Retroactive Effect of-Jurisdiction of Labor Board Under. See "Jurisdic-
tion of Labor Board Under Transportation Act."
1. Non-compliance with.
2. Legal effect of labor provisions of Act as viewed by Board.
1. Non-compliance with.
Where Receiver of road, party to Decision 2 of Labor Board, reduced
wages of employees by order of the Court, and where employees involved,
upon such reduction being put into effect, left the service of the carrier in con-
cert, question as to violation of Decision 2 and Transportation Act by Receiver
of road and by organizations of employees concerned. Decision-(1) Receiver
violated Decision 2 by failure to hold conference as directed by Board's
Decision No. 89, and, in case of disagreement, referring dispute to Board for
decision; putting into effect instead the wage reduction ordered by the Court
which latter action was contrary to the letter and spirit of the Transportation
Act (2) Board cannot condone what in itself was wrongful act on part of
employees, whose duty, on learning that Receiver would not join in referring
dispute to the Board, was to, themselves, refer it to the Board-(3) Due to
complication resulting from the strike, Labor Board believes there is nothing
to be gained at the moment by requesting Court to recall its order of February
28 and to direct reinstatement of former employees; it does, however, request
the Court to direct the Receiver to confer with the petitioners upon question of
what constitutes just and reasonable wages, etc., and in case of disagreement to
refer dispute to Board for decision-(4) Board also requests petitioners to at-
tempt again to confer with Receiver regarding justness and reasonableness of
wages and in case of failure to agree to submit dispute to Board for decision-
(5) As the U. S. District Court of the Northern District of Georgia is ex-
ercising jurisdiction in regard to matter of wages for the employees, in order
to prevent conflict of jurisdiction, Board will take no further action in the
matter until the Court shall approve or deny the Board's requests. AB&A-
Engineers et al. Decision No. 121.
Dispute as to method of choosing representatives of employees to nego-
tiate with carrier concerning rules covering working conditions. In confer-
ence with representatives of system federation of shop craft employees
carrier declined to negotiate with such representatives on the ground that
it had not satisfactory proof that they actually represented a majority of
the employees in question. In order to procure evidence as to whom the
majority of its shop craft employees desired to have represent them, the
carrier prepared and distributed to its shop employees a ballot on which
they were to designate their representatives. This ballot provided only
for voting for individuals. The employees requested the carrier to amend
its ballot so as to provide an opportunity for the shop employees to vote for
an organization if they so desired; this proposal was declined. by the car-
rier. The shop craft organization objected to carrier's ballot on the fol-
lowing grounds: (1) that the system federation did represent a majority
of the employees in the shop crafts, which the carrier did not deny and that,
therefore, the proposal to take a ballot involved unnecessary delay; (2) that
the proposed ballot was not in accordance with the law in that it not only
failed to permit the employees to vote for an organization, but required
them to designate individuals; (3) because it provided that the individuals
so designated must be employees of the carrier; and (4) because it pro-
vided that the employees be represented regionally rather than for the
system as a whole. As these objections were not entertained by the carrier,
officers of the local organization issued a ballot of their own preparation to
277
shop employees, which ballot gave opportunity to vote for the system federa-
tion or any other organization which the employees might prefer, but did
not present opportunity to vote for any individual. These separate ballots
resulted in separate selections. The carrier recognized the result of the
election which it conducted, and negotiated rules with the representatives
chosen on its ballot and refused to recognize the representatives chosen as
the result of the employees' ballot. Decision-The Board decided that the
carrier "had no legal authority to divide its system into regions and require
the employees to elect regional representatives," as the Transportation Act
"contemplates that the employees of the class directly interested on an entire
system shall select representatives." The Board also decides that the carrier
"was not justified in refusing the request of the employees to place on the
ballot the name of the organization," and that the shop crafts were "not
authorized by the law and ignored the rights of the non-union men," in
distributing a ballot of their own preparation with no opportunity provided
thereon for voting for individuals. Accordingly, "under the authority of the
Transportation Act, . . . the Labor Board hereby declares that both of said
elections. . were illegal and that rules negotiated by the alleged representa-
tives selected by either ballot will be void and of no effect, and orders that a
new election be held." The Board thereupon lays down detailed instructions
as to the form of the ballot and as to the distribution, collection and counting
of the ballots in connection with the reelection which it ordered. PRR-SC.
Decision No. 218.
•
Petition of the carrier requesting the Board to vacate and set aside its
Decision No. 218. The Board declined the request of the carrier for a
hearing on the matters brought out in its petition except in connection with
the following, concerning which a hearing was offered: (1) as to what
employees not in the actual service of the carrier, such as those laid off,
furloughed or absent upon leave, shall be permitted to vote in the election
of representatives to confer with the carrier; (2) as to how the represen-
tative capacity of the spokesmen of unorganized employees shall be ascer-
tained; and (3) as to the "adoption or ratification of its shop craft rules by
the representatives of said crafts fairly selected by a majority of the em-
ployees of that class." Order of the Board in re: Docket 404 (Decision
218). PRR-SC.
Modification of Decision 218 to`extent that method of election of represen-
tatives of employees shall be by secret ballot. Add. 1 to Decision No. 218.
Request for reinstatement with pay for time lost of switchman and fireman
dismissed from service because as alleged by the organizations they responded
to request of chief executives of their organization for certain information
as to the status of the wage questions on their line, which information had
been requested of the executives by the Labor Board because of the receipt
of advice by such Board from the officers of the company which indicated
that no dispute existed between the management and employees, whereas
the employees were at the time contending for payment of time and one-half
for overtime as in effect on other railroads in the territory. Management
states employees in question were dismissed for having positively declined to
carry out instructions of superintendents. Decision-This appears to be a case
of managing officers of the carrier declining to meet with their employees
through representatives of organizations. The Transportation Act, 1920, spe-
cifically provides for handling of disputes through organizations composed of
employees and Board has explicitly dealt with this subject in Decision No.
224, to which attention is hereby directed. It is self-evident that no orderly
adjudication of differences between employees and carrier can be had if carrier
declines to meet representatives of an "organization of employees or subordi-
nate officials whose members are directly interested in the dispute," but, on the
contrary, dismisses from service employees who seek such recognition. After
considering all the facts, the Board decides that the employees in question shall
be reinstated to their former positions and paid for time lost since date of
dismissal. InterstateRR-T&F. Decision No. 528.
Dispute with reference to application of decreases in rates of pay author-
ized in Decision No. 217 to employees of the Southeastern Express Company.
278
On July 11, 1921, the Labor Board rendered Decision No. 217, authorizing
certain decreases for employees of the American Railway Express Company.
The Southeastern Express Company was not a party to the dispute upon
which Decision No. 217 was rendered, but the decreases authorized therein were
applied to certain employees in its service. Employees contend that this action.
on part of the carrier should not have been taken without proper conference
and agreement with the employees. Decision-Board decides that the South-
eastern Express Company, in reducing wages without seeking conference with
the representatives of the employees interested, has acted in conflict with
Section 301 of the Transportation Act, 1920, and with Order No. 1 of the
Board, and that it shall restore to all employees affected by the application
of said decision the difference between the rates of pay they have received since
August 1, 1921, and the rates of pay they would have received had the wages
in force during the period prior to that date remained in effect. SEE-Clks.
Decision No. 822.
Proceeding under Section 313 of the Transportation Act, 1920, to ascertain
and determine whether or not the carrier in question has violated Decision
No. 528 of the Labor Board. Decision No. 528 involved the dismissal of a
certain switchman and fireman, because as alleged by the organizations they
responded to request of chief executives of their organizations for certain
information as to the status of the wage question on their line, which informa-
tion had been requested of the executives by the Labor Board because of the
receipt of advice by said Board from the officers of the company which indi-
cated that no dispute existed between the management and employees, whereas
the employees were, at the time, contending for payment of time and one-half
for overtime as in effect on other railroads in the territory. Management states
employees in question were dismissed for having positively declined to carry
out instructions of superintendent. Road declined to become a party to the
case. Decision No. 528 of the Board ordered the reinstatement of the em-
ployees in question. Decision-"In this proceeding the carrier again refused
to appear before the Board and in letter from its attorney made the state-
ment: 'I beg to state that the Interstate Railroad Company is of opinion that
the Labor Board has only advisory powers in matters of this kind.' The
question thus presented, in this case, is a most important one.
Here is a
carrier which arbitrarily and unfairly denies to its employees the simple right
to perform their duties as members of their organizations, which is equivalent
to a denial of their right to become members of such organizations. This
action is taken in the teeth of the Transportation Act passed by the Congress
of the United States, which expressly recognizes the right of employees to
organize and to function as organizations. The fact that this carrier is a
small road down in the Virginia mountains makes its conduct none the less
reprehensible. It connects with other carriers and the irritating effect of its
disregard for the rights of its men and for the authority of the law extends
to employees on other roads, and the Board therefore decides that this com-
pany and its responsible officials have violated Decision No. 528 of the Board
as herein indicated." IRR-T&F. Decision No. 886.
Certain agencies which were included in telegraphers' agreement were re-
classified as supervisory agents by carrier and certain changes made in their
wages and working conditions with the understanding that under designa-
tion of supervisory agents they would not be subject to the provisions of
the telegraphers agreement. The agreement referred to contains a provision
that it shall remain in effect until 30 days notice has been given by either
party to the other party requesting a change in same, and employees are
contending that as carrier failed to serve the 30 days notice or hold conference
with the employees before changing the classification of the agents referred to
it violated the provisions of their agreement and they, therefore request
that rates of pay and working conditions of the agents at the stations in
question as established by the agreement be restored and the employees
affected reimbursed for monetary loss sustained. Carrier takes position
that growth of business at the stations in question justified the rearrange-
ment of station forces and that duties and responsibilities of the former
agents were changed sufficiently to warrant designating them as supervisory
agents; that supervisory agents do not come within the scope of the Trans-
279
portation Act or the jurisdiction of the Labor Board and that the tele-
graphers' committee had no right to attempt to represent them. Decision-
Board states that the question presented to it in this dispute is whether
or not the action of the carrier was in violation of the terms of the agree-
ment between the carrier and its employees in telegraph service, and it
is decided that under the rule of the agreement the agents at the stations
named should not have been excluded from the provisions thereof until 30
days notice had been served upon the representatives of the employees in
telegraph service, requesting that the change be made, or until conference
had been held with the employees' committee, or until handled in the manner
provided in the Transportation Act. The Board does not undertake to pass
on whether or not these agents are supervisory, but merely that in view
of said positions having been included in the agreement between the employees
and the carrier, they should not have been excluded therefrom unless or
until the provisions of the agreement and the Transportation Act have been
complied with. GCL-Tel. Decision No. 930.
Application of the Southeastern Express Company for rehearing on
Decision No. 822, in which it was decided that the Southeastern Express
Company in reducing wages without seeking conference with the representa-
tives of the employees interested, had acted in conflict with Section 301 of
the Transportation Act, 1920, and in conflict with Order No. 1 of the Labor
Board and that wages previously in effect should be restored and the em-
ployees affected paid the difference between the rates they have received
since August 1, 1921, and the rates they would have received had the wages
in force during the period prior to that date remained in effect. Decision-
The Board, after due consideration of the motion of the carrier named, for
rehearing of the dispute referred to overruled said motion and declined
to reopen said case. SEECO. Decision No. 949.
2. Legal Effect of Labor Provisions of Act as Viewed by Board.
Request for reinstatement and pay for time lost while out of service by
two section foremen dismissed account membership in labor union to which
the men working under them also belonged. Decision-Action of carrier in
discharging these men for cause named was unfair, unjust and unreasonable
and men shall be reinstated with full seniority rights, and be reimbursed for
losses suffered, less any amounts earned since date of dismissal, provided there
was on this carrier an existing rule or established usage guaranteeing to
employees pay for loss occasioned by unjust suspension or dismissal. (Board
states its decision is based on just and reasonable grounds rather than on the
strict legal rights of the parties involved.) Butler County RR-MofW. De-
cision No. 224.
TRANSPORTATION-ISSUANCE OF FREE.
Request for leave of absence and annual card transportation for general
chairman representing maintenance of way employees. Decision-It is a
recognized and time honored practice on practically all roads to grant leaves
of absence and free transportation to general chairmen representing large
groups of employees, and it is, therefore, decision of Board that the request is
justified. W&LE-MofW. Decision No. 333.
Dispute with reference to refusal of carrier to furnish the general chair-
man of the clerks' general committee with transportation on the ground that
he was not an employee and it would not be legal to issue transportation to
him. Decision-This employee was granted leave of absence in accordance.
with the rules of the agreement to act as representative of the employees and
it was admitted by the carrier that this leave of absence had never been can-
celled or revoked. The Board, therefore, decides that he is still an employee
on leave of absence and as such is entitled to the same consideration with
regard to the issuance of free transportation as is accorded the representatives
of other employees of the carrier. PM-Clerks. Decision No. 536.
Claim of express messenger for free transportation-no facts given. Case
withdrawn by employees and file closed. ARECo-Clerks. Decision No. 617.
Claim of certain employee for refund of cash fare paid for trip between
"
280
certain points. Employee in question made request for transfer to another
point, which request was granted by carrier and arrangements made for the
transfer and bulletining of his run. Request for transportation for himself
and family was made, but employee left prior to receipt of the transportation,
and is now claiming refund of the amount of cash fare paid by him for the
trip in question. Decision-Evidence indicates that the Express Company
made request upon the railroad over which this employee traveled for refund
of the fare he was required to pay, which request was declined, and as it
is shown that this employee was transferred for personal reasons and that there
was no reason so far as the carrier was concerned why he could not have
waited until receipt of the transportation, claim of the employees is denied.
ARE-Clks. Decision No. 909.
·
TRAVEL TIME-PAY FOR.
Question as to whether employees sent out from headquarters to do work
without outfit cars are entitled to continuous time until return to assembling
point, including all time traveling and waiting. Decision-No; payment should
be made in accordance with Sec. (i), Art. V, of National M. of W. agree-
ment. MC-MofW. Decision No. 208.
Claim that certain mechanics in the B&B Departments who are sent out
from regular headquarters and required to work, wait or travel as regulated
by train service, should be paid straight time for all time traveling and waiting
in accordance with Section (m), Art. V, of national agreement. Decision-
Employees in question are properly compensated in accordance with Section
(i) of national agreement. CCC&StL—MofW. Decision No. 249.
Question as to rules in Signalmen's National Agreement applicable to cer-
tain signalmen who, while assigned to regular eight hour day on hourly basis
with regular starting and quitting time, are required at least once a week to
go out on road to distribute or assist in distribution of batteries to various
signals over their territory, returning to home station same day. On such
occasions employees frequently consume several hours traveling and waiting in
addition to regular day for which they receive no extra compensation except
for actual service performed. Claim is made for continuous time from time
required to report to time they return to home station whether waiting or
traveling, in accordance with Sec. 17, Art. II, of agreement. Decision-Board
decides that Sections 18 and 20, Art. II, of agreement referred to, which have
reference to pay of men sent out on road, are applicable to the service in
question. SP-Sig. Decision No. 293.
Claim for travel time to and from headquarters and homes on Monday
mornings and Saturday nights, account removal of headquarters; employees
contending that Decision No. M-321 of Board of Adjustment No. 3 of U. S.
Railroad Administration provided that when headquarters were changed em-
ployees affected would not be required to move their permanent homes and
should be allowed pay for time traveling to their work on Monday mornings
and return to their homes Saturday nights. Carrier holds that the decision in
question gave to employees who were members of gangs at time transfer of
headquarters was made pay for travel time, but did not extend such allowance
to employees who might subsequently enter such a gang of their own accord,
and employees involved were not members of the gang at time change was
made. Decision-Claim of employees denied. BR&P-MofW. Decision No.
336.
Question as to whether under Rule 10 of National Shop Agreement em-
ployees should be paid for time traveling to their home station when such em-
ployees are permitted to go to bed for five or more hours on the cars on which
they are traveling. Decision-Under rule referred to employees shall be paid
for all time traveling irrespective of whether or not they are relieved and per-
mitted to go to bed for the time specified. AA-SC. Decision No. 338.
Claim of roustabout carpenter for pay for travel time under Section (m),
Article V of the National Maintenance of Way Agreement. Carrier contends.
that this employee has been properly paid under Section (i), Article V of the
agreement in question. Decision-Position of carrier sustained. L&N-MofW.
Decision No. 647.
281
Question as to whether traveling labor gang in water service department
shall be compensated under Section (i) of Section (n), Article V of the
National Maintenance of Way Agreement. Evidence indicates that there
employed by the carrier in question a traveling road gang whose duties are to
look after pipe lines and water flue installations, laying new lines, changing
and renewing or relocating old lines, excavating foundations, mixing concrete
and other laborers' work. The gang is in charge of a pump repairer who
receives instructions from the water service foreman regarding work to be
done by the gang. This gang moves from place to place as the work requires
and has no established headquarters or boarding outfit, except in some cases
where there is heavy work to be done necessitating a long stay at some outfit
point where accommodations are not available, in which event outfit cars are
furnished. Carrier holds that the work of the gang in question is essentially
road service of the character that was intended to be covered by Section (i),
Article V and that these men are properly compensated under said section and
article. Decision-Board decides that service in question comes within the
meaning and intent of Section (i), Article V of the National Agreement and
position of carrier is, therefore, sustained. SP-MofW. Decision No. 794.
TUG BOATS. Railroad operated.
Increases granted by Labor Board to masters, mates and pilots of-See
"Art. X, Decision 2."
Decreases, effective July 1, 1921, covering employees of-See "Art. X,
Decision 147.”
TURNAROUND RUNS.
(For short turnaround runs coming under eight-within-ten hour rule-
See "Eight-Within-Ten-Hour Rule.")
Question as to proper application of Decision 2 to minimum day rates in
short turnaround passenger service. Settled locally and case withdrawn. OW
RR&NCO-EF. Decision No. 95.
Prior to Sup. 16 certain runs were paid minimum day on each leg of trip
when last leg not made on same calendar day. Under Sup. 16 these runs
were placed on turnaround basis and calendar day disregarded, but as daily
rates previously allowed were higher than mileage rates of supplement, such
minima were retained. In the application of Decision 2 the mileage rates were
higher, thereby superseding or absorbing former minima, but committee con-
tends that such minima should not be absorbed but increases given under De-
cision 2 added to these daily minima. Decision-Management method of pay-
ment just and reasonable. RF&P-CT. Decision No. 57.
Dispute as to proper classification of certain express messenger runs, em-
ployees contending that the runs in question are turnaround runs and the
messengers thereon should be paid in accordance with Rule 76 of the Express
Agreement. Decision-Claim denied. ARECo-Clks. Decision No. 240.
TURNING TRAINS-PAY FOR.
Claims of crews in passenger service for one hour additional compensation
for turning trains at certain point. Employees contend that inasmuch as switch
engines are maintained at the point in question the practice of passenger crews
being required to turn their train and engine on the wye except in case of
emergency is not in conformity with the rules of the agreement and should
be discontinued. They agree, however, to perform the service provided they
are paid one hour additional compensation therefor, in accordance with specified
schedule rules. Carrier contends that while the movement of trains around the
wye at the point in question has the effect of turning them, it is so far as the
train and engine crew is concerned merely a change of route for the purpose of
backing the train into the station for the safe and more convenient unloading
of passengers, etc., and cannot be construed as turning the train as referred to
in the agreement. Decision-Board decides that the turning of trains by
crews in passenger service on the wye before their day's work is completed is
not a violation of the rules of the agreement, but also decides that in accordance
with the rules cited by the employees they are entitled to pay on the basis
282
of actual minutes at pro rata rates in addition to all other time or mileage
made on the trip from the time train passes onto the first leg of the wye until
it passes onto the main track from the second leg of the wye.
EFC&T. Decision No. 719.
TWO OR MORE CLASSES OF SERVICE.
See "Combination Service."
MK&T-
UNASSIGNED SNOW-PLOW SERVICE. See "Snow-Plow Service."
UNIFICATION ARRANGEMENTS—SENIORITY RIGHTS
UNDER. See "Seniority."
UNIONS-RIGHTS OF EMPLOYEES TO HOLD MEMBERSHIP IN.
Request for reinstatement and pay for time lost while out of service by
two section foremen dismissed account membership in labor union to which
the men working under them also belonged. Decision-Action of carrier in
discharging these men for cause named was unfair, unjust and unreasonable
and men shall be reinstated with full seniority rights; and be reimbursed for
losses suffered, less any amounts earned since date of dismissal, provided
there was on this carrier an existing rule or established usage guaranteeing
to employees pay for loss occasioned by unjust suspension or dismissal.
(Board states its decision is based on just and reasonable grounds rather
than on the strict legal rights of the parties involved). Butler County RR-
MofW. Decision No. 224.
Proceeding under Section 313 of the Transportation Act, 1920, to ascertain
and determine whether or not the carrier in question has violated Decision
No. 528 of the Labor Board. Decision No. 528 involved the dismissal of a
certain switchman and fireman, because of having responded to request of
chief executives of their organizations for certain information as to the
status of the wage question on their line, which information had been
requested of the executives by the Labor Board because of the receipt of
advice by said Board from the officers of the company which indicated that
no dispute existed between the management and employees, whereas the
employees were, at the time, contending for payment of time and one-half
for overtime as in effect on other railroads in the territory. Road declined
to become a party to the case. Decision 528 of the Board ordered the
reinstatement of the employees in question. Decision-"In this proceeding
the carrier again refused to appear before the Board and in letter from its
attorney made the statement: 'I beg to state that the Interstate Railroad
Company is of opinion that the Labor Board has only advisory powers in
matters of this kind.' The question thus presented, in this case, is a most
important one. Here is a carrier which arbitrarily and unfairly denies to
its employees the simple right to perform their duties as members of their
organizations, which is equivalent to a denial of their right to become
members of such organizations. This action is taken in the teeth of the
Transportation Act passed by the Congress of the United States which
expressly recognizes the right of employees to organize and to function
as organizations. The fact that this carrier is a small road down in the
Virginia mountains makes its conduct none the less reprehensible. It con-
nects with other carriers and the irritating effect of its disregard for the
rights of its men and for the authority of the law extends to employees
on other roads, and the Board, therefore, decides that this company and
its responsible officials have violated Decision No. 528 of the Board as
herein indicated." IRR-T&F. Decision No. 886.
UNSKILLED FORCES.
Increases granted by Labor Board to-See "Art. III, Decision 2."
Request of New York Central R. R. for reduction in rates of pay of un-
skilled labor, and that, pending final decision on said request, the Board issue.
a provisional order authorizing the railroad to pay its unskilled labor rates
of wages less than those determined to be just and reasonable by Decision 2;
the final decision to be retroactive to April 1, 1921. Decision-Request for
283
provisional order denied. NYC-Misc. organizations. (See decision.) De-
cision No. 111.
U. S. RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION.
tion."
VACANCIES. Bulletining and Filling.
See "Railroad Administra-
Claim of freight conductor filling temporary vacancy in passenger service
for time lost while waiting for return of his caboose, which was out on the
line, when displaced by return of regular man on the passenger run. Claim
sustained under specific schedule rule. D&SL-EFC&T. Decision No. 35.
Request for new rule providing that vacancies occurring in the ranks of
yardmen will be filled with promotable men; also that the organization repre-
sented in the agreement be insured not less than 85% of the men employed in
the yard and be given preference in employment. Denied-Board decides pres-
ent rule or practice is just and reasonable. N&W-Tr. Decision No. 66.
Claim that Chattanooga, Tennessee, does not come within the class of
"larger stations" as referred to in Paragraph (b) under Title "Exceptions,"
Rule 1, Art. I, Clerks' National Agreement, and that position of chief clerk
to the agent at this point comes within the scope of the agreement and should
be bulletined for bid account individual increase allowed such position. Claim
denied. NC&StL-Clks. Decision No. 87.
Where employee left the service and carrier bulletined the vacancy at
a lower rate of pay than the former incumbent was receiving, claim is made
that such reduction in the rate of the position was in violation of Rule 71
of the clerks' national agreement, and that the former rate be reestablished
from date the reduction was made, and the increase authorized by Decision.
2 added to said rate. Decision-Claim sustained-Decision not to be con-
strued to prohibit the establishment of minimum rates for inexperienced
clerks as provided in Decision 147. EP&SW-Clks. Decision 238.
Dispute in connection with the bulletining of certain so-called non-
clerical positions, designated as station warehousemen. Decision-Board
decides that inasmuch as question of bulletining non-clerical positions was
given consideration in conferences between representatives of employees
and the carrier, in accordance with Decision 119, it is not necessary for
Board to make interpretation of rule at this time. This should not be
understood to prohibit the employees from presenting claims for compensa-
tion in manner provided in agreement, and, if not satisfactorily adjusted,
to the Labor Board in accordance with Title III of Transportation Act,
1920. SP-Clks. Decision 239.
Claim that position of valuation accountant comes within the scope of
the clerks' national agreement and should have been bulletined in accordance
with Rule 12 of the agreement. Decision-Evidence before Board shows
that the employee involved left the service of the carrier Aug. 28, 1920, and
the position in question was abolished Oct. 1, 1920; therefore, there is
nothing for Board to decide in this case and it is ordered striken from the
docket and the file closed. EP&SW-Clks. Decision 242.
Claim that position was not bulletined and not given to the senior em-
ployee at the time it became vacant, and that the senior man, who was sub-
sequently assigned to the position, should be reimbursed for the difference.
in the salary of position held in service and the position in which the
vacancy occurred from the date of the vacancy to date of his assignment
thereto. Decision-Claim sustained. CI&W-Clks. Decision No. 244.
Dispute in connection with bulletined position not awarded to senior
applicant. Decision-Sec. (a), Art. III, of the national agreement, estab-
lishes seniority as the first consideration in selecting the successful
applicant, but there must be coupled with seniority, sufficient fitness and
ability to qualify on the position in the thirty days' provided in section (e),
Art. III. No evidence was submitted that would substantiate claim of
employees that other employees senior in service were qualified to fill
position in question, nor is there any evidence to refute the carrier's
statement that the employee who it is claimed should have been assigned
284
to the position, left the service of his own accord and thereby automatically
surrendered his seniority rights with the bridge gang. Board, therefore,
decides that the employee assigned by the carrier shall not be displaced
from the position. NYC-MofW. Decision 251.
Vacancy occurred in a certain position which was promptly bulletined and
clerk, who was filling position of voucher clerk in same department, applied
for and was awarded the vacancy. His name was posted as the successful
applicant, and his position of voucher clerk was thereupon bulletined and sub-
sequently awarded to the senior qualified applicant. Employees now claim
that while the clerk in question was the successful applicant for the position
referred to and his name posted as required by Rule 12 of the national
agreement, he was never actually assigned to the position, and his position
of voucher clerk should never have been bulletined. This clerk who failed
to take the position which was awarded to him subsequently applied for
and was assigned to another position. Decision-Evidence indicates that
the provisions of the rules were strictly adhered to by the carrier in con-
nection with bulletining of positions involved, and claim of employees is,
therefore, denied. N&W-Clks. Decision 285.
Where employee was awarded bulletined position, but not placed thereon
for thirty days thereafter, claim is made for pay of awarded position from
date assignment was posted. Decision-Board decides employee is entitled
to rate of awarded position from expiration of ten-day period allowed the
carrier for assignment, under the rule. ARECo-Clks. Decision 304.
Complaint against continuance of trainmen's schedule rule relating
to reduction of force and filling of vacancies, and which rule specifies that
negroes are not to be used as flagmen, except that those in that service
may be retained therein with their seniority rights; it being alleged that
in some instances senior white flagmen bid in positions as head brakemen
for purpose of displacing colored head brakemen with less service age,
leaving vacant position as flagmen, for which position colored men are
not eligible, which is then bid in by junior white men. Decision-After
careful consideration of evidence submitted, the Board decides that the
schedule containing the rule in question was negotiated by representatives
of a majority of the class of employees interested. The Board cannot,
however, approve of any discrimination in favor of or against either white
or colored employees in the application of the provisions of the rule. Com-
plaint is dismissed and request denied. IC-Y&MV-AssnColRyTrain.
Decision 307.
Where schedule rule for conductors provides that when compensation
on established runs is increased or decreased $15.00 or more per month,
such runs shall be considered new runs and advertised as such, claim is
made that as the increases under Decision 2 amounted to more than amount
specified in rule all runs on system should be considered as new runs and
advertised. Decision-Board is of opinion that it was not intent of rule
in question to require all runs on system to be considered as new runs
and advertised as such when compensation was practically uniformly in-
creased. Rules similar to this are of a general nature and usually apply to
individual or small groups of runs, but are not intended to apply when a
general increase is made applicable to all runs on system. The status or
relation of one run as compared with another remains approximately the
same. Claim of employees denied. L&N-C&T. Decision 324.
Where rates of pay of certain positions were increased by carrier, claim
is made that as the increases in the rates of the positions in question were
not the result of negotiations of a general character that such changes
constituted new positions which should be bulletined in accordance with
Rule 10 of the agreement. Carrier contends that these increases were made
in conjunction with general increases granted employees in express service
throughout the country where economic conditions made increases neces-
sary; that no protest has been made by the clerks' organization with reference
to the increases nor any application received from any employee in the
office for the positions increased, and that to comply with the employees
request would require bulletining thousands of positions in express service
*
285
which were affected by the general increases made during the early part
of the year 1920. Decision-Records of Labor Board show that during the
period January to August, 1920, general increases were granted to express
employees throughout the country for the purpose of retaining in service
employees who were being attracted to more remunerative employment
elsewhere. It further appears that positions involved were increased in the
month of June, 1920 and no protest filed with carrier in regard to bulletining
the positions increased until October of that year. Request of employees is
therefore, denied. ARECo-Clks. Decision 360.
Where two employees who were out of service account reduction in force
filed application for position newly created in another seniority district and
placed on bulletin in accordance with rules and to which a junior employee
from another point was assigned, claim is made that the senior applicant
should have been given preference to the position. Carrier contends that
only obligation on their part with respect to the appointment was to give
employees preference over non-employees and this requirement was fulfilled.
Decision-The employees admit that none of the employees referred to in
the dispute held seniority rights in the seniority district in which the
position in question was posted. The employee assigned to the position
had previously held a position in the carrier's service at another station.
which was abolished upon establishment of the district accounting bureau
at the point in question. Claim of employees is, therefore, denied. ARECo-
Clks. Decision No. 362.
Vacancy occurred in position of mail carrier which was bulletined but
no applications received from employees on the clerks seniority roster in
the seniority district in which the vacancy occurred. Two applications, how-
ever, were received from employees in another seniority district-one from
an employee in the car department and another from an employee in the
store department and position was awarded to employee in the car depart-
ment. The employees contend that position should have been awarded
to the employee in the store department for the reason he was the senior
applicant and was employed in the department in which the provisions of
the clerks' national agreement applied whereas the employee in the car depart-
ment was engaged in service governed by rules of an agreement with
another class of employees and construe Rule 24, which provides that
employees filing application for positions bulletined in other seniority districts.
should if they possess sufficient fitness and ability be given preference over
non-employees, to require the appointment of an employee in the department
in which the provisions of the agreement apply in preference to employees
working under provisions of agreements with other organizations. Deci-
sion-Claim of employee denied. WM-Clks. Decision No. 367.
Claim that senior applicant should have been awarded bulletined position.
Decision-This controversy covers a difference of opinion between the
employees and the carrier as to whether the senior applicant had sufficient
fitness and ability to have justified a trial on the position in question, and
at the hearing before the Board it was agreed by the representatives of
employees and carrier that the dispute should be subject to further in-
vestigation and conference. Case is, therefore, removed from the docket
and file closed. NYC-Clks. Decision No. 392.
Dispute with reference to
certain point-no facts given.
PM-Clks. Decision No. 389.
bulletining of new position and vacancies at
Case withdrawn by employees and file closed.
At a certain outlying point where several switch engines used in mine
service layover there were employed for several years prior to October, 1920,
one boilermaker, one hostler, one hostler helper, two engine watchmen,
two fire cleaners, and one supply man. On or about October 1, 1920 carrier
posted five day notice and laid off the boilermaker who was the only
mechanic employed at the point in question. At the expiration of the
notice another boilermaker was brought from another division and assigned
as a working foreman, and he performs all of the mechanic's work previously
done by the boilermaker in question, and in addition thereto exercises super-
vision over other employees at this point. Employees contend that Rules 18
286
and 27 of the national agreement were violated and request that the boiler-
maker laid off be returned to his job and allowed pay for time lost, while
the carrier contends that it was entirely within its rights in assigning
a working foreman under the provisions of Rule 32. Decision-While the
Board recognizes the right of the carrier to appoint employees of its own
selection to important supervisory positions it does not feel that it was
the intent of the rules as incorporated in the national agreement, to
permit the carrier to displace employees at small outlying points by the
exercise of this privilege without good and sufficient reasons, and decides
in this particular dispute that the carrier was not justified in displacing
this boilermaker, the only mechanic employed at the point in question, and
that he should be reinstated to his former position with seniority rights
unimpaired; but in view of his declination of employment at another point
he shall only be reimbursed to the extent that he would have suffered
a wage loss if any, on the basis of what he would have earned in the
position offered, as compared with what he would have earned on his regular
position. MP-ShCfts. Decision No. 409.
Claim that senior employee had sufficient fitness and ability and should
have been awarded bulletined position. Decision-Claim denied. SP-Clks.
Decision No. 458. StLSW-Clks. Decision No. 558. B&O-Clks. Deci-
sion No. 705.
Dispute in regard to promotion of senior laborer to position of machinist
helper. Management takes the position that machinist helpers' positions
are governed by rules of the shop craft agreement; that no machinist helper
bid for vacancy; that while in many cases where no helper applies for a
vacant position the senior man in the labor class applying is given the
place there is no obligation under any agreement to assign the senior laborer,
and that in this case on account of the age of the senior laborer (55 years)
he was not given the assignment. Decision-Board does not construe that
the management was obligated under the provisions of the then existing
agreement to promote the senior laborer to the position of helper and claim of
the employees is, therefore, denied. B&M-KofL. Decision No. 549.
Claim of certain telephone switchboard operator for right to a 30-day
trial in position of Wahl operator. Decision-It appears from the evidence
before the Board that this employee was not awarded the position of Wahl
operator but was given an opportunity to demonstrate her ability and
fitness for same and after a period of 15 days it was decided she did not have
the requisite fitness and ability to justify her assignment to the position.
Claim of employees is, therefore, denied. ARE-Clks. Decision No. 677.
Claim of certain employee for position of messenger on trains operated
between certain points contention being that employee in question was the
senior applicant and should have been assigned to the run. Decision-
Facts before the Board show that neither of the applicants for this run
had any seniority in road service, but the employee assigned had had ap-
proximately 8 years previous experience in road service in the territory in
which this run is located, and there was no evidence to show that any order,
rule or agreement was violated in the action taken by the carrier in this
case, and claim of employees, is therefore, denied. ARECo-Clks. Decision
No. 699.
Dispute with reference to bulletined position not awarded to senior
employees. Decision-Position involved in this dispute was abolished within
a few months after it was assigned to the successful applicant, therefore
there is nothing for the Board to decide and the case is removed from the
docket and the file closed. ARE-Clks. Decision No. 702.
Question as to whether certain positions, the duties of which were ma-
terially changed, should be bulletined and employees holding same be
permitted to exercise their seniority rights under the rules of the clerks'
national agreement. Employees contend that the employees involved in
this dispute held positions of rate revision clerks, and that the change
in the character of the work of their positions constituted the abolishment
of the positions of rate clerks and the establishment of new positions of
correspondence clerks, and that these employees should, therefore, be per-
!
287
mitted to exercise their seniority rights over junior rate clerks in the
office, and that the positions which they held should be bulletined as
positions of correspondence clerks, in accordance with the rules of the
agreement. Carrier states that as a result of an increase in the amount of cor-
respondence and statements of differences handled, it was necessary to reap-
portion the work among the clerks in the office in question, in order to
avoid an unequal distribution of the work; that no change was made in
the rates of pay for hours of service; that the clerks continued on their
positions without loss in time and that no new positions were created.
Decision-Board decides that positions held by the employees involved
were not abolished; that the action taken by the carrier was not in violation
of any rule of the national agreement, and claim of employees is, therefore,
denied. B&O-Clks. Decision No. 740.
Dispute in regard to assignment of men classified as machinist helpers
to position of sheet metal workers' helpers instead of assigning laborers
older in the service. Carrier takes position that under agreement there
is no obligation to give laborers positions as helpers although it has been
the practice to do so when no helpers have applied for new positions or
vacancies; and further that an understanding had been reached with
the Federated shop crafts that instead of going outside and hiring sheet
metal workers' helpers where there were machinist helpers doing sheet
metal workers' helpers work they would reclassify them and make them
sheet metal workers' helpers in order to preserve their positions as helpers.
Decision-Board cannot find where the carrier violated the provisions of
any rules or agreement in handling the matter as above outlined and claim
of employees is, therefore, denied. B&M-KofL. Decision No. 770.
Claim of certain track laborer for assignment to position of section
foreman, which he filled temporarily while position was being advertised
for bids, which position was awarded to a former employee on the ground
that the only bidder on the position was incompetent to fill same. Carrier
takes position that the track laborer in question did not bid on the position
of foreman when the job was advertised, and, therefore, the management
was under no obligation to continue him in the position which he was
filling temporarily pending closing of the bids. He was considered com-
petent to fill the position temporarily, but did not have sufficient experience
or ability to hold the position during the time that the regular foreman
would be away. Furthermore, this track laborer, at the time the matter
came up, had been employed only seven weeks and three days and was
not entitled to exercise seniority rights to the position in question. Deci-
sion-In view of the fact that this employee was credited with less than
six months' service record, the Board is of the opinion that, in view of the
language of Section (h), Árticle II, of the agreement, that the question of
seniority has no bearing in this case. The Board cannot find that the
management has violated the rules of the agreement in this particular
case, and the claim of the employees is, therefore, denied. BR&P-MofW.
Decision No. 809.
Where position of claim clerk was abolished and new position of
utility clerk created, claim is made that such action was in violation of
Rule 84 of the clerks' national agreement, and that certain senior employees
should be given the opportunity of qualifying for the position of utility
clerk, in accordance with the rules of the agreement. Decision-Evidence
shows that position of claim clerk was abolished and position of utility
clerk, with some added duties, was established in lieu thereof. The rate
of the position remained the same, and the new position was bulletined
as required by the rules of the agreement; therefore the claim that Rule 84
was violated is not sustained. It is also shown that the senior employees
referred to did not have the requisite fitness and ability to qualify on the
position of utility clerk, and the claim of the employees that they be
granted a trial on the position is, therefore, denied. G&SI-Clks. Decision
No. 855.
Dispute regarding method of bulletining of positions of drivers at certain
point. Employees state that it is not customary to show the location of the
288
:
route or otherwise specifically describe the vacancy and claim that under Rule
10 of the agreement this should be done. Decision-The Board is of the opin-
ion that employees holding night positions should be entitled to bid upon new
positions or vacancies in day service, but does not believe that the carrier should
be required to designate each driver's route by number or otherwise for the
purpose of posting it for bulletin in the manner requested by the employees,
and decides that in bulletining new positions or vacancies in vehicle service,
the bulletin shall indicate whether position is in day or night service, but in
making assignments to such positions in accordance with the rules of the
agreement the carrier shall not be required to assign thereto employees in the
same class of service at the same rate of pay, except that employees working
nights may be assigned in accordance with their seniority rights to day positions
which may be bulletined. ARE-Clks. Decision No. 917.
VACATIONS.
Request that all freight office employees be entitled to annual vacation
with pay and those not having been granted the privilege be entitled to addi-
tional pay for keeping up work of employees on vacation. Denied-Sup. 7
and National Agreement do not change past practice in this regard. LV—
Clks. Decision No. 9. ·
Where it had been practice in previous years to grant ten days' vacation
with pay, while in 1920 only six days were allowed, claim is made for com-
pensation for the four days for which vacation was curtailed. Sustained.
WM-Clks. Decision No. 140.
Claim of train dispatchers for vacations for the year 1921. Decision-
Board decides that under the rule in effect governing vacations for train
dispatchers, the train dispatchers who had been in the service of the
carrier named for a period of one year or more were entitled to a vacation
for the year 1921. However, since the year 1921 has passed and the rule
does not provide for a double vacation period in the following year or
pay in lieu of vacations granted, the Board cannot afford the employees
any relief in this dispute. EP&SW-ATDA. Decision No. 851. MK&T-
ATDA. Decision No. 852.
Prior to national agreement, clerical employees were allowed two weeks'
vacation with pay. Under national agreement employees were placed on
a daily basis, the daily rate being fixed on basis of 306 days per year, time
worked on Sundays being paid for in addition. Since this agreement seven-
day per week employees are being allowed twelve days' vacation with pay,
while the employees are contending that such seven-day clerks should be
given fourteen days vacation with pay. Decision-Claim of employees
denied. N&W-Clks. Decision No. 306.
Claim of transfer foreman for pay for two weeks actual vacation taken in
the year 1920. Employees claim that prior to period of Federal control it
was the practice of carrier to grant employee involved an annual vacation
of two weeks with pay and to assign another employee to his position during
his absence. Carrier contends that it was not the past practice to grant
annual vacation with pay to employee in question but that the practice
was to grant this employee a vacation when arrangements could be made
to take care of the duties of his position without additional expense, but
that in the year 1920 conditions at the station were such that it was im-
possible to grant this employee an annual vacation with pay without
assigning another employee to his position at additional expense. During the
time this employee was absent on his vacation another employee had to be
assigned to his position. Decision-Board decides that under past practice
employee in question is not entitled to pay for two weeks vacation taken in
the year 1920 and claim is, therefore, denied. SPCo-Clks. Decision No. 375.
Claim of clerk for vacation with pay. Decision-Basing decision upon
evidence before it Board decides that under past practice employee in ques-
tion is not entitled to vacation with pay. SP-Clks. Decision No. 378.
MP-Clks. Decision No. 776. EP&SW-Clks. Decision No. 859.
Claim of clerk in mechanical superintendent's office for vacation with
pay during year 1921. Decision-Board decides that under past practice
289
employee involved in this dispute is not entitled to vacation with pay. MP-
Clks. Decision No. 386.
Dispute with reference to vacation period for certain clerical employees-
no facts given. Case withdrawn by employees and file closed. PM-Clks.
Decision No. 390.
Request that clerical employees in certain offices who were not granted
annual vacations with pay in the year 1921 be compensated therefor. De-
cision-Evidence shows that it is not practice of carrier to compensate
employees for annual vacations which were not granted and claim of em-
ployees for compensation is, therefore, denied. StLSF-Clks. Decision
No. 537.
Dispute with reference to carrier abrogating past practices in regard to
vacations and request that clerical employees at certain offices who were
not granted annual vacations in the year 1921 be compensated therefor.
Decision-Decision 2 of the Labor Board continued in effect rules estab-
lished by or under the authority of the U. S. Railroad Administration until
such rules are changed by mutual agreement. The representatives of the
employees and the carrier having been unable to agree upon a rule covering
the vacation period the question is now before the Board for decision
and pending a decision by the Board the instructions of the Director, Di-
vision of Operation of the U. S. Railroad Administration shall remain in
effect. However, since the period during which vacations are ordinarily
granted is past for the year 1921, it is not practicable to require the carrier
to allow vacations for that year and it is not possible to grant the em-
ployees any relief in this dispute. Evidence shows that it was not the
practice of the carrier to compensate employees for annual vacations which
were not granted and claim of employees for compensation in lieu thereof
is, therefore, denied. MK&T-Clks. Decision No. 634.
Claim of certain clerical employees for pay in lieu of vacations which
were not granted in the years 1920 and 1921. Decision-Board decides that
under past practice employees involved in this dispute are not entitled
to compensation in lieu of vacations which were not granted and claim is,
therefore, denied. B&O—Clks. Decisions Nos. 682, 760, 937. ARE-Clks.
Decisions Nos. 689 and 691.
•
Claim of clerk for pay for vacation during year 1920. Case withdrawn
by employees and file closed. SP-Clks. Decision No. 692.
Claim of certain clerical employees for vacations with pay. Case with-
drawn by employees and file closed. SP-Clks. Decision No. 694.
Request for reinstatement of assistant division accountant dismissed
from service for alleged insubordination in refusing to work overtime to
catch up the work that had accumulated on his desk during his vacation
period. This employee was granted a vacation with pay under a rule which
provided that employees would receive vacations with pay with under-
standing that the other employees would keep up the work or that the
employees who received vacations would be required to catch up the work
on their desk without extra compensation. When this employee returned
from his vacation he was informed that the work had accumulated to a
sufficient extent to require his working overtime and he thereupon insisted
upon extra payment for any overtime which he might work. He was not
specifically directed to work overtime and did not volunteer to do so. De-
cision-Board decides that discipline in this case is not well sustained and
orders that this employee be reinstated with seniority rights unimpaired.
However, as it is shown that he failed to carry out his obligation under
the rules governing vacations with pay claim for pay for time lost is denied.
CM&StP-Clks. Decision No. 767.
VIOLATION OF DECISIONS. See "Decisions-violation of."
VIOLATION OF NATIONAL AGREEMENTS. See "National Agree-
ments."
290
WAGES. Just and reasonable-what constitutes-See Decisions Nos. 2,
20, 54, 107 and 147. Add. 1 and 2 to Decision No. 147. Decisions
148, 214, 215, 217, 228, 229.
Reduction of-See "Reduction of Rates of Pay."
WAGE REQUESTS. See "Increases-request for."
WAREHOUSE FOREMEN. See "Foremen."
WASHOUTS-TIE-UPS ACCOUNT OF-See "Tie-ups on Road."
WATER LICENSE-PAYMENT OF.
Question as to payment of water license for water furnished employees
residing in company-owned houses. Decision-Board denies contention of
employees, provided there is no change made by carrier in regard to present
arrangement as to rental. MP-MofW. Decision No. 325.
WATCHMEN. Shop-See "Shop Watchmen."
WORK—REASSIGNMENT OF. See "Reassignment of Work."
WORKING TWO TERRITORIES DURING SAME SHIFT.
Dispatcher-See “Doubling.”
WORKING CONDITIONS.
Conditions."
Changes in-See "Rules and Working
WORK AND WRECK-TRAIN SERVICE.
Where yard conductor performing work train service during portion of his
yard day made claim for highest rate (work train) for days on which the
two classes of service were required and which claim as presented was allowed,
claim is now made for back pay to January, 1915, for occasions on which such
combination service was performed and for which only yard rates had been
paid. Board without jurisdiction-matter having occurred before passage of
Transportation Act. N&W-Tr. Decision No. 79.
Request that yardmen handling work or wreck trains in yard limits be
paid yard rates instead of road rates. Denied—“work train rates of pay" shall
be paid for work train service regardless of where service is performed. N&W
-Tr. Decision No. 71.
Claim of conductor, regularly assigned to combination service consisting
of short branch run and yard switching work, for which through freight
rates are being paid, for work train rate of pay on certain day when
required to unload car of cinders within the yard switching limits. De-
cision-Claim denied. L&N_C&T. Decision No. 323.
Where certain section laborers were called to wreck on Sunday and
worked thereat from 8 a. m. until 6 p. m., for which they were compensated
at pro rata rate for first 8 hours and time and one-half rate for remainder
of time on duty, claim is made that employees in question are entitled to
punitive overtime for all services rendered on Sundays under latter para-
graph of Section (a-5) and also Section (a-6), Article V of the national
agreement. Decision-Claim of employees is denied. MP-MofW. De-
cision No. 355,
WORK-CESSATION OF-See "Quitting Work."
WRECK-TRAIN SERVICE. See "Work-Train Service."
YARD SERVICE.
Increases granted by Labor Board to engineers and firemen and helpers in-
See "Sec. 3, Art. VI, Decision 2."
Increases granted by Labor Board to Foremen, helpers and switch-tenders
in-See "Sec. 4, Art. VII, Decision 2." See "Sec. 4, Art. VI, Decision 5."
291
Application of Decision 2 to. See "Decision 2-Application of."
Application of Decision 119 to-See "Decision 119-Application of."
Decreases, effective July 1, 1921, covering yard forces-See "Sec. 3, Art.
VI, and Sec. 4, Art. VII of Decision 147."
1. Yardmasters and Assistant Yardmasters
2. Yard crews on road, or combination service in yard
3. Yardmen working on two shifts
4. Overtime Rates and Bases
5. Classification of Service and Rates
6. Switchtenders
7. Runarounds
8. Miscellaneous.
(NOTE: For Seniority in Yard Service-See "Seniority" under "S.”)
1. Yardmasters and Assistant Yardmasters.
Increases granted by Labor Board to-See "Art. XI, Decision 2." See
"Art. VIII, Decision 5."
Decreases effective July 1, 1921, covering-See "Art. XI, Decision 147."
2. Yard Crews on Road, or Combination Service in Yard.
Claim of road crew for runaround account yard crew sent out on main
line to bring section men to terminal. Denied. Yard crew used in "emer-
gency" within meaning of yard men's rule. B&SL-EFCT. Decision No. 25.
Where yard conductor performing work train service during portion of
his yard day made claim for highest rate (work train) for days on which
the two classes of service were required and which claim as presented was
allowed, claim is now made for back pay to January, 1915, for all occasions
on which such combination service was performed and for which only yard
rates had been paid. Board without jurisdiction matter having occurred be-
fore passage of Transportation Act. N&W-Tr. Decision No. 79.
3. Yardmen Working on Two Shifts.
Where no fixed number of men known as "hump riders" are assigned to
crew and it has been practice to call such men during regular shift as needed,
using all riders eight hours each so that in course of day the men called dur-
ing a shift will lap over and finish their day with the regular crew of the
next shift and for which they are paid a day of eight hours for such service;
claim is made that under such conditions a minimum day at pro rata rates for
service performed on first shift and minimum day at time and one-half for
service performed on second shift account working under two different yard
conductors even though only eight hours' continuous service was performed.
Claim denied-payment made is just and reasonable. N&W-Trainmen. De-
cision No. 69.
Where yard brakeman, after completing his regular shift, is required to con-
tinue on succeeding shift, account shortage of men, and works thereon for two
hours and forty-five minutes before being relieved, claim is made for one day's
pay at time and one-half, in addition to pay for his regular shift. Board with-
out jurisdiction-matter having occurred before passage of Transportation
Act. N&W-Trainmen. Decision No. 73.
4. Overtime Rates and Bases.
Where no fixed number of men known as "hump riders" are assigned to
crew and it has been practice to call such men during regular shift as needed,
using all riders eight hours each so that in course of day the men called during
a shift will lap over and finish their day with the regular crew of the next
shift and for which they are paid a day of eight hours for such service; claim
is made that under such conditions a minimum day at pro rata rates for service
performed on first shift and minimum day at time and one-half for service
292
performed on second shift account working under two different yard con-
ductors even though only eight hours' continuous service was performed.
Claim denied; payment made is just and reasonable. N&W-Trainmen. De-
cision No. 69.
Where yard brakeman, after completing his regular shift, is required to
continue on succeeding shift, account shortage of men, and works thereon
for two hours and forty-five minutes before being relieved, claim is made for
one day's pay at time and one-half, in addition to pay for his regular shift.
Board without jurisdiction, matter having occurred before passage of Trans-
portation Act. N&W-Trainmen. Decision No. 73.
5. Classification of Service and Rates.
Request that yardmen handling work or wreck trains in yard limits be paid
yard rates instead of road rates. Denied "working train rates of pay" shall
be paid for work train service regardless of where service is performed. N&W
-Tr. Decision No. 71.
6. Switchtenders.
Request for new rule providing that in filling switchtenders' positions,
preference will be given partially disabled former yard and train service em-
ployees. Denied. Present practice just and reasonable. N&W-Trainmen.
Decision No. 68.
Question as to proper classification of employees now classified as
"switchman and baggage master." Prior to August 30, 1920, these employees
were classified as baggage masters and for a number of years they were
regularly assigned to handling several main line switches per day for the
movement of certain regular passenger trains. On August 30, 1920, at the
request of the trainmen's committee, following memorandum 16-27 of the
United States Railroad Administration, which provides "the term 'switch
tender' (ground switchman) is understood to apply to employees assigned
to handling one or more main line or lead switches in connection with
terminals wherever yard engines are maintained," the payroll classification
of these positions was changed to "switchman and baggage master" and rate
of pay was increased in accordance with rate applicable to switch tenders
under Decision No. 2. Employees claim the term "switch tender," as used in
memorandum referred to means an employee who is assigned to handling
a main line or lead switch, and that the employees involved in this dispute
are not so assigned in connection with a terminal where yard engines are
maintained, and further contend that these employees devote four or more
hours of their time to the work assigned to baggage masters, and should,
therefore, be classified as baggage masters. Carrier takes position that
while employees in question do not handle switches for yard engines or
freight trains, they do handle one or more main line switches in connection
with a terminal where a yard engine is maintained, and, therefore, come
within the scope of the memorandum of the Railroad Administration referred
to. Decision-Position of carrier sustained. B&M-Bro.of RRStaEmp. De-
cision No. 765.
7. Runarounds.
Where service was annulled in yard due to snow blockade, claim is made
for time on certain dates during such period on which it is claimed switching
was performed by hostlers and yardmasters. Denied. Emergency work. D&
SL-EFCT. Decision No. 52.
8. Miscellaneous.
Request for new rule providing yardmen riding cars on hump or gravity
yards will not be required to control more than one car unless coupled to-
gether-employees contending this is safety provision and practice of discon-
necting cars and then allowing them to bump together while on hump should
be discontinued, alleging dangerous operation-road holds practice in effect
293
many years and not a dangerous one and this manner of handling cars is in
interest of economy and efficiency. Board decides present rule or practice is
just and reasonable. N&W-Tr. Decision 67.
Request for new rule providing that vacancies occurring in the ranks of
yardmen will be filled with promotable men; also that the organizations rep-
resented in the agreement be insured not less than 85% of the men employed
in the yard, and be given preference in employment. Denied. Board decides
present rule or practice just and reasonable. N&W-Trainmen. Decision No.
66.
294
LIST OF DECISIONS ISSUED BY THE LABOR BOARD
APPLYING OR INTERPRETING SPECIFIC SECTIONS
OR PORTIONS OF ITS DECISIONS OF GENERAL APPLI-
CATION.
DECISION 2
Article II.-Clerical and Station Forces


Preamble
Sec. 1
Sec. 2
Sec. 3
Sec. 4
Sec. 5
Int. 2
200
135 535
268
Int. 2
48
384
268 567
535
135
142
245
783
567
513
139 203
191 788
863
277
935
783
935
Sec. 6
Sec. 7
Sec. 8
Sec. 9
Int. 15
863
125 286
788
125
136 384
391
185 391
513
186 649
649
Article III.-Maintenance of Way and Structures


Preamble
Sec. 3
Sec. 4
Sec. 6
Sec. 7
Sec. 8
116
518
49
92
41
Int. 1
41 301
711
128
117
128 711
301
118
143 806
331
898
331 897
899
Article IV.—Shop Employees
Article V.-Telegraphers,
Telephoners and Agents

Preamble Sec. 1
Sec. 2
Sec. 3
Sec. 4
Sec. 1
Sec. 2
252
Int. 20
Int. 3
Int. 3
Int. 20
135
131
Int. 20
Int. 20
179
397
129
295
Article VI.-Engine Service Employees
Sec. 1
Article VII.-Train Service
Employees

Sec. 2
Sec. 4
Sec. 1
Sec. 3
Sec. 4
Int. 5 Int. 14
Int. 6
Int. 17
40
487
Int. 10 Int. 16
Int. 7
Int. 18
143
188
Int. 8
484
Int. 11 Int. 22
Int. 13
Int. 16
Article VIII.-Stationary Engine and
Boiler Room Employees
Article IX.-Signal Employees

Sec. 1
Sec. 2
202
256
352
349
397
Sec. 3
129
Article XI.-Other Supervisory Forces || Article XII.-Miscellaneous Employes
Sec. 1
152
247
Int. 21
515

Article XIII.-General Application
Interpretation 1 Interpretation 19
Sec. 1
Sec. 3
940
Int. 1
117
256
716
Int. 3
118
349
533
940
47
182
400
114
202
882
115
247
897
296
DECISION 119
Principle 2
Principle 6
Principle 12
467
467
731
Principle 15
Addendum 2
153
218 357 476
525
407
544
644
154
220
412
477
583
504
585
645
155
225
418
502
618
541
588
648
173
227
419
503
542
593
174
259
425
504
543
595
205
291
456
514
Int. 1 to Add. 2
Int. 2 to Add. 2
541
543
542
544
545
651
DECISION 147
Article II.-Clerical and Station Article III.-Maintenance of Way and Struc-
tural and Unskilled Forces Specified
Employes
847
Sec. 1
591
Sec. 8
711

Article IV.-Shop
Employes
Article XI.-Other
Supervisory
Article XII.-Miscella-
neous Employes
Sec. 2
Sec. 1
Sec. 9.-Par. "D"
591
720
711
297
ADDENDUM I TO DECISION NO. 147
Article II.-Clerical and Station Forces

General
Sec. 1
Sec. 2
Sec. 4
214
215
621
Par. (a)
Par. (b)
621
Add. 1 to 215
621
621
DECISION 222

General
Addendum 3.-Rule 55
Addendum 6.-Rule 6
892
893
796
DECISION 721
General Instructions
Sec. 1
810 813 849
811
814
850
812
815
866
848
890
298
DECISIONS OF THE LABOR BOARD SEPARATED AMONG
VARIOUS RAILROADS PARTIES TO THE RESPECTIVE
DECISIONS
Abilene & Southern R. R.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Decision No. 15, Int. 19 to Decision
No. 2, Decision No. 119.
Ahnapee & Western Railway.
Decision No. 222.
Akron, Canton & Youngstown Railway.
Decision No. 108.
Alabama Great Southern Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 222, 721.
Alabama & Vicksburg Railway.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119, Add. 4 to Decision No. 222, Add. 1 to Decision No. 501, Decision Nos.
721, 757.
Alton & Southern Railroad.
Add. 1 to Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No.
2, Decision No. 119.
American Railway Express Co.
Decision Nos. 2, 3, 12, 13, 14, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision Nos. 112,
119, 127, 134, 151, 177, 178, 184, 187, 189, 217, 240, 270, 276, 281, 282, 283, 287,
294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 304, 305, 360, 361, 362, 363, 369, 370, 371, 613, 614,
615, 616, 617, 624, 627, 628, 636, 637, 638, 652, 653, 654, 655, 656, 659, 661, 662,
664 to 673, inclusive, 677 to 681, inclusive, 683, 685 to 691, inclusive, 697 to 704,
inclusive, 722, 727, 728, 736, 784, 817, 842, 843, 845, 846, 856 to 858, inclusive,
864, 880, 881, 900, 904, 905, 906, 907, 909, 917, 932, 933, 934, 939.
American Refrigerator Transit Co.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
Ann Arbor Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 147, Int. 2 to Decision No. 119, Decision Nos. 222, 299, 338, 587.
Apalachicola Northern Railroad.
Decision No. 108.
Arizona Eastern Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 456.
Arizona & New Mexico Railway.
Decision No. 108.
Arkansas Western Railway.
Decision Nos. 147, 299.
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway.
Decision No. 2, Int. 3 to Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 16 to
Decision No. 2, Decision No. 20, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision Nos. 119,
147, Add. 1 to Decision No. 222, Decision Nos. 299, 373, 404, 501, 540, 599,
630, 707, 721, 725, 757, 763, 769, 808, 819, 867, 873, 887, 912 to 915, inc.
Atlanta & St. Andrews Bay Railway.
Decision No. 108.
299
Atlanta & West Point Railway.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 222.
Atlanta, Birmingham & Atlantic Railway.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Decision No. 89, Int. 19 to Decision
No. 2, Decision Nos. 119, 121.
Atlanta Joint Terminals.
i
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 222.
Atlantic & St. Lawrence Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
Atlantic City Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 147, 299.
Atlantic Coast Line Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 222, 225, 660, 684, 707, 761, 762, 835, 863, 884.
Atlantic & Yadkin Railway.
Decision Nos. 222, 721.
Baltimore & Ohio Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 147, 222, 299, Add. 1 to Decision No. 501, Decision Nos. 630, 682,
705, 707, 709, 721, 725, 740, 760, 789, 790, 796, 816, 870, 872, 937.
Baltimore & Ohio Chicago Terminal Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 147, 222, 299, 501, 630, 707, 726, 830.
Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co.-New York Terminals-.
Decision No. 630.
Baltimore & Sparrows Point Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
Baltimore, Chesapeake & Atlantic Railway.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 147, 299, 721.
Bangor & Aroostook Railroad.
Decision No. 5, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision Nos. 147, 207, 222, 299,
498, 501, 630.
Barnegat Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
Barre & Chelsea Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
Bath & Hammondsport Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
Beaumont, Sour Lake & Western Railroad.
Decision Nos. 2, 119, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2,
Decision Nos. 725, 726, 757.
Beaumont Wharf & Terminal Company.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 147, Add. 1 to Decision No. 222, Decision No. 299.
300
Bellingham & Northern Railway.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
Belt Railway of Chicago.
Decision Nos. 147, 222, 299, 500, 501, 707.
Bessemer & Lake Erie Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 222, 234, 721.
Big Fork & International Falls Railway.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 147, 222, 299, 501, 721.
Blue Ridge Railway.
Decision No. 108.
Boston & Albany Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 147, 222, 299, 757.
Boston & Maine Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 42, 45, 70, 119, 147, 222, 299, 344, 426, 501, 544, 549, 630, 651, 726, 765,
770, 802, 757.
Boston Terminal Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 119, Decision
No. 529.
Boyne City, Gaylord & Alpena Railroad.
Decision No. 108. .
Brooklyn Eastern District Terminal.
Decision Nos. 108, 150.
Brownwood North & South Railway.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 119, Decision
Nos. 501, 630.
Buffalo Creek Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
Buffalo & Susquehana Railroad Corporation.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 147, 222, 299, 826.
Buffalo, Rochester & Pittsburgh Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 147, 210, 222, 299, 335, 336, 337, 412, Add. 1 to Decision No. 501,
Decision Nos. 523, 707, 721, 757, 809, 896.
Butler County Railroad.
Decision Nos. 109, 224.
Butte, Anaconda & Pacific Railway.
Decision No. 108.
Camas Prairie Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
Canadian Pacific Railway.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
Cape Charles Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
301
A₂
Carolina, Clinchfield & Ohio Railway.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 222, 757.
Carolina, Clinchfield & Ohio Railway of S. S.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 222, 757.
Carolina & Northwestern Railway.
Decision No. 108.
Catasauqua & Fogelsville Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 147, 299.
Central of Georgia Railway.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 196, 222.
Central New England Railway.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 147, Add. 4 to Decision No. 222, Decision Nos. 299, 426, 630, 707, 757.
Central Union Depot & Railway Co. of Cincinnati.
Decision Nos. 147, 299, 630, 757.
Central Indiana Railway Company.
Decision No. 222.
Central New York Southern Railroad.
Decision No. 108.
Central Railroad of New Jersey.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 4, 119, 147, 222, 299, 397, 519, 579, 589, 646, 707, 805.
Central Vermont Railway.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 147, 299, Add. 2 to Decision 757.
Central Vermont Trans. Co.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
Champlain & St. Lawrence Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
Charleston & Western Carolina Railway.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 222, 721, 757.
Charlotte Harbor & Northern Railway.
Decision No. 108.
Charlotte, Monroe & Columbia Railroad.
Decision No. 108.
Chesapeake & Ohio Lines.
Decision No. 2, Int. 8 to Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19
to Decision No. 2, Decision Nos. 119, 147, 222, 299, 332, 501, Add. 3 to Decision
No. 630, Decision Nos. 757, 770, 902.
Chesapeake & Ohio Railroad of Indiana.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 147, 222, 299, 501, 707.
Chesapeake & Ohio Northern Railway.
Decision Nos. 147, 299.
Chester & Delaware River Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 147, 299.
302
Chesterfield & Lancaster Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
Chicago & Alton Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 113, 119, 147, 222, 299, 501, 629, 630, 714, 721, 795, 830, 908.
Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 129, 147, 154, 222, 299, 331, 494, Add. 1 to Decision No. 501, Decision
Nos. 630, 721, 757, 758.
Chicago & Erie Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 147, 222, 299, 501, 707.
Chicago & Illinois Midland Railway.
Decision No. 108.
Chicago & Northwestern Railway.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 110, 115, 116, 119, 128, 147, 183, 195, 222, 232, 235, 236, 237, 250, 272, 273,
299, 501, 522, 524, 539, 630, 631, 650, 676, 707, 710, 713, 716, 721, 725, 743 to
755, inclusive, 757, 778, 806, 897 to 899, inc.
Chicago & Western Indiana Railroad.
Decision Nos. 147, 222, 630, 707.
Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 147, 152, 155, 222, 299, Add. 1 to Decision No. 501, Decision Nos.
630, 707, 725, 757, 793, 801, 861, 862, 868, 869.
Chicago, Detroit & Canadian Grand Trunk Junction R. R.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
Chicago Great Western Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119, Int. 2 to Decision No. 119, Decision Nos. 119, 147, 206, 221, 222, 223,
299, 501, 707, 721, 725.
Chicago, Indianapolis & Louisville Railway.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 118, 119, Int. 2 to Decision No. 119, Decision Nos. 147, 222, 299, 501,
607, 630, 649, 707, 721, 757, 771.
Chicago Junction Railway Company.
Decision Nos. 147, 222, 299, 501, Add. 1 to Decision No. 630.
Chicago, Kalamazoo & Saginaw Railway.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119, Add. 4 to Decision No. 222, Add 1 to Decision No. 501, Decision Ncs.
630, 757.
Chicago, Lake Shore & South Bend Railway.
Decision No. 33.
Chicago, Memphis & Gulf Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 147, 222, 299, 477, Add. 1 to Decision No. 501, Decision Nos. 707, 757.
Chicago, Milwaukee & Gary Railway.
Add. to Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2,
Decision No. 119, Add. 1 to Decision No. 501, Decision Nos. 630, 721, 757.
Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 147, 222, 274, 299, 364, 387, 396, 468, 469, 470, 475, 489, Add. 1 to
Decision No. 501, Decision Nos. 538, 563, 573, 612, 623, 625, 626, 630, 635,
639, 701, 725, 757, 767, 775, 850.
303
Chicago, Peoria & St. Louis Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 147, 222, 299, 501, 757.
Chicago River & Indiana Railroad.
Decision Nos. 147, 222, 299, 501, Add. 1 to Decision No. 630.
Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 147, 222, 299, 374, 405, 419, 501, 545, 591, 630, 641, 721, 757, 781, 871.
Chicago, Rock Island & Gulf Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 147, 222, 299, 501, 630, 721, 757.
Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 222, 493, 495, 501, 525, 630, 721, 725.
Chicago, Terre Haute & Southeastern Railway.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 326, 327, 490.
Cincinnati, Burnside & Cumberland River Railway.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
Cincinnati, Indianapolis & Western Railway.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 147, 244, 299, 334, 825, 885.
Cincinnati, Lebanon & Northern Railway.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119.
Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas Pacific Railway.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 222, 721.
Cincinnati Northern Railway.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 147, 222, 299, 501, 630, 721, Add. 3 to Decision No. 757.
Cincinnati, Saginaw & Mackinaw Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 124, 143, 147, 201, 222, 226, 249, 257, 299, 353, 501, 605, 630, 707,
721, 725, 757.
Coal & Coke Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 147, 299.
Colorado & Southern Railway.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 50, 119, 144, 222, 484, 501, 508, 575, 630, 644, 717, 721, 726, 757.
Colorado & Wyoming Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
Columbus & Greenville Railroad.
Decision Nos. 222, 501.
Connecting Terminal Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
Copper Range Railroad,
Decision No. 108.
304
Cornwell & Lebanon Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
Cumberland & Pennsylvania Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 222, Add. 1 to Decision No. 501, Decision Nos. 721, 757.
Cumberland Valley Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
Cupples Station (St. Louis, Mo.)
Decision No. 630.
Danville & Western Railroad.
Decision No. 108.
Davenport, Rock Island & Northwestern Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
Dayton & Union R. R.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
Dayton, Toledo & Chicago Railway.
Decision No. 108.
Delaware & Hudson Co.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 222, Add. 1 to Decision No. 501, Decision No. 707, Add. 1 to Decision
No. 757, Decision Nos. 780, 901, 931.
Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Decision Nos. 4, 8, Int. 19 to Deci-
sion No. 2, Decision Nos. 92, 117, 119, 136, 137, 138, 139, 147, 198, 222, 254, 299,
351, 352, 406, 501, 518, 588, 630, 707, 725, 757, 807.
Delaware River Ferry Co. of N. J.
Decision No. 147.
Dennison & Pacific Suburban Railway.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
Denver & Interurban Railroad.
Decision No. 33.
Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 147, 222, 299, 329, 501, 559, 564, 595, 630, 721, 729, 814, 848, 882.
Denver & Salt Lake Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 34, 35, 52, 85, 119, 147, 148, 299,
721, Add. 2 to Decision No. 501.
Denver Union Terminal Railway Co.
Decision Nos. 302, 501, 630, 707.
Detroit & Mackinac Railway.
Decision Nos. 214, 258.
Detroit, Bay City & Western Railroad.
Decision Nos. 108, 721.
Detroit, Grand Haven & Milwaukee Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
Detroit Terminal Railroad.
Decision Nos. 147, 299.
305
Detroit, Toledo & Ironton Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
Detroit & Toledo Shore Line Railroad.
Decision No. 422.
Duluth & Northern Minnesota Railway.
Decision No. 108.
Duluth & Superior Bridge Co.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
Duluth, Missabe & Northern Railway.
Decision Nos. 145, 146, 721, 926, 927.
Duluth, South Shore & Atlantic Railway.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 147, 222, 299, 501, 630, 721.
Duluth Terminal.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
Dunleith & Dubuque Bridge.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 707.
East & West Coast Railway.
Decision No. 108.
East Broad Top Railroad & Coal Co.
Decision No. 108.
East Tennesee & Western North Carolina Railroad.
Decision No. 108.
Eastern Texas Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 757.
Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 222, Add. 1 to Decision No. 501, Decision Nos. 707, 757.
El Paso & Northeastern Railroad.
Decision Nos. 147, 299.
El Paso & Southwestern Co.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 125, 147, Add. 5 to Decision No. 222, Decision Nos. 238, 242, 245, 299,
359, 485, 486, 501, 609, 630, 721, 726, 851, 859, 860.
El Paso & Southwestern Railroad of Texas.
Decision Nos. 147, 299.
El Paso Union Passenger Depot.
Decision No. 630.
Erie Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Decision No. 4, Int. 19 to Decision
No. 2, Decision Nos. 91, 119, 147, 190, 197, 222, 299, 472, 501, 553, 630, 707, 721.
Erie & Michigan Railway & Navigation Co.
Decision No. 108.
Escanaba & Lake Superior Railroad.
Decision No. 108.
Evansville & Indianapolis Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119,
306
Evansville, Indianapolis & Terre Haute Railway.
Decision Nos. 147, 299, 501, 721, Add. 3 to Decision No. 757.
Farmers Grain & Shipping Railroad Co.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
Florida Central & Gulf Railway.
Decision No. 108.
Florida East Coast Railway.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119, Int. 2 to Decision No. 119, Decision Nos. 222, Add. 1 to Decision No.
501, Decision Nos. 503, 757.
Fort Dodge, Des Moines & Southern Railroad.
Decision No. 33.
Fort Smith & Western Railroad.
Decision Nos. 108, 181, 215, 222, 584, 598, 721.
Fort Smith, Subiaco & Rock Island Railroad.
Decision No. 108.
Fort Street Union Depot Co. of Detroit, Mich.
Decision No. 501.
Fort Wayne, Cincinnati & Louisville Railroad.
Decision Nos. 147, 222, 299, 501, 630, 707.
Fort Worth Belt Railway.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 501.
Fort Worth & Denver City Railway.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 147, Add. 1 to Decision No. 222, Decision Nos. 299, 501, 590, 592,
630, 721, 757, 911.
Fort Worth & Rio Grande Railway.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 501, 630.
Gainesville Midland Railway.
Decision No. 108.
Gallatin Valley Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Railway.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 147, 119, Add. 4 to Decision No. 222, Decision Nos. 299, 707.
Galveston Wharf Co.
Add. No. 3 to Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision
No. 2, Decision Nos. 119, 630.
Georgia & Florida Railway.
Decision No. 108.
Georgia Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 222, 921.
Georgia, Florida & Alabama Railway.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 222.
Georgia Southern & Florida Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 222, 721.
307
Gettysburg & Harrisburg Railway.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 147, 299.
Gilmore & Pittsburg Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
Grand Canyon Railway.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 147, 299, 501, 630, 707, 721, 757.
Grand Rapids & Indiana Railway.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
Grand Trunk System-Lines in United States.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 147, 222, 299, 421, Add. 1 to Decision No. 501, Decision Nos. 630,
721, 757.
Grand Trunk Western Railway.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
Great Northern Railway.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 54, 119, 147, 222, 299, 410, 501, 586, 718, 721, 725.
Green Bay & Western Railroad.
Decision Nos. 108, 222.
Greenwich & Johnsonville Railway.
Decision No. 108.
Gulf & Ship Island Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 460, 463, 464, 572, 606, 844, 855.
Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 147, Add. 1 to Decision No. 222, Decision Nos. 280, 299, 501, 630,
707, 721, 757, 839.
Gulf Coast Lines.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 147, Add. 4 to Decision No. 222, Decision Nos. 299, 399, 403, 501,
721, 725, 726, 757, 833, 925, 930.
Gulf, Florida & Àlabama Railway.
Decision No.108.
Gulf, Mobile & Northern Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 222, 630, 757.
•
Hannibal Union Depot Company.
Decision No. 171.
Harriman & Northeastern Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 222, 721.
Hawkinsville & Florida Southern Railway.
Decision No. 108.
High Point, Randlemen, Asheboro & Southern Railroad.
Decision No. 108.
Hocking Valley Railway.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 41, 119, 147, 222, 299, 501, 543, 630, 720, 721, 757, 816, 890, 895.
308
Houston & Brazos Valley Railway.
Decision No. 108.
Houston Belt & Terminal Railway.
Decision No. 147, Add. 4 to Decision No. 222, Decision Nos. 299, 501,
707, 725, 726, 757.
Houston & Shreveport Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 147, Add. 4 to Decision No. 222, Decision Nos. 299, 707.
Houston & Texas Central Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 147, Add. 4 to Decision No. 222, Decision Nos. 299, 497.
Houston, East & West Texas Railway.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 147, Add. 4 to Decision No. 222, Decision Nos. 299, 707.
Hudson & Manhattan Railroad.
Decision No. 33.
Huntington & Broad Top Mountain Railroad & Coal Company.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
Iberia & Vermillion Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 147, Add. 4 to Decision No. 222, Decision Nos. 299, 707.
Illinois Central Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 14 to Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19
to Decision No. 2, Decision Nos. 119, 147, 222, 299, 307, 457, 461, 477, Add. 1
to Decision No. 501, Decision Nos. 547, 548, 604, 630, 707, 721, 725, 757, 777,
865, 888.
Illinois Terminal Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 259.
Indiana Creek Valley Railroad.
Decision No. 108.
Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 147, 299, 568, 581, 608.
Indianapolis Union Railway.
Decision Nos. 147, 193, 222, 299, 501, 630, 707.
International & Great Northern Railway.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 6, 7, 51, 119, 147, 179, 222, 299, 496, 501, 721, 757, 782, 849.
Interstate Railroad.
Decision Nos. 32, 108, 528, 886.
Interurban Railway.
Decision No. 33.
Jacksonville Terminal Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 160, 222, Add. 1 to Decision No. 501, Decision Nos. 630, 707.
Joint Car Association of El Paso & Juarez Rys.
Decision No. 708.
Joplin Union Depot Co.
Decision No. 582.
Kanawha & Michigan Railway.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 147, 222, 299, 721, 757, 830.
309
Kanawha & West Virginia Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 147, 299, 721.
Kankakee & Seneca Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
Kansas City, Clinton & Springfield Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
Kansas City, Mexico & Orient Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 222, 230, 501, 630, 721, 725, 757, 818.
Kansas City, Mexico & Orient R. R. of Texas.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 222, 501, 602, 630, 721, 725, 757.
Kansas City Southern Railway.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 106, 119, 147, 222, 299, Add. 1 to Decision No. 501, Decision Nos. 527,
721, 725, 757.
Kansas City Terminal Railway.
Decision No. 147, Add. 1 to Decision No. 222, Decision Nos. 299, 501, 648,
725,757, 854.
Kansas, Oklahoma & Gulf Railway Company.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 222, 721.
Kansas, Oklahoma & Gulf Ry. of Texas.
Decision No. 721.
Kansas South Western Railway.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
Kentucky & Indiana Terminal Railroad.
Decision Nos. 222, 630.
Kewanee, Green Bay & Western Railroad.
Decision No. 222.
Lackawanna & Montrose Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
Lackawanna & Wyoming Valley Railroad.
Decision No. 33.
Lake Charles & Northern Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 147, 299.
Lake Erie & Eastern Railroad.
Decision Nos. 147, 299.
Lake Erie & Western Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 147, 222, 299, 501, 630, 707, 725.
Lake Erie, Franklin & Clarion Railroad.
Decision No. 108.
Lehigh & Hudson River Railway.
Decision Nos. 501, 707.
Lehigh & New England Railroad Company.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 147, 299, 501, 600, 757.
310
Lehigh Valley Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 4, 9, 119, 133, 222, 501, 569, 630, 642, 643, 696, 707, 732 to 735, inclusive,
757, 787, 799, 823, 853, 918, 936.
Lewiston & Auburn Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
Live Oak, Perry & Gulf Railroad.
Decision No. 108.
Litchfield & Madison Railway.
Decision Nos. 309, 721.
Long Island Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 4, 119, 147, 219, 299, 418, 501, 721, 757, 813.
Lorain, Ashland & Southern Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
Lorain & West Virginia Ry.
Add. 4 to Decision No. 222, Decision Nos. 501, 630, 757.
Los Angeles & Salt Lake Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 36, 43, 86, 104, 105, 119, 147, 222, 267, 275, 299, 308, 487, 501, 630, 757.
Louisiana & Arkansas Railway.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 721, 757.
Louisiana & Pacific Railway.
Decision No. 108.
Louisiana Railway & Navigation Company.
Decision No. 108.
Louisiana Western Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 147, Add. 4 to Decision No. 222, Decision Nos. 299, 707.
Louisville & Jeffersonville Bridge & R. R. Co.
Decision Nos. 147, 299, 501, 630, 725, Add. 3 to Decision No. 757.
Louisville & Nashville Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 4 to Decision No. 2, Int. 5 to Decision No. 2, Int. 6 to
Decision No. 2, Int. 7 to Decision No. 2, Int. 9 to Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Deci-
sion No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision Nos. 18, 119, 130, 147, 299, 323,
324, 354, 365, 383, 481, 501, 504, 630, 647, 707, 721, 725, 757, 779, 785, 792, 834,
923, 928.
Louisville Bridge & Terminal Railway.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
Louisville, Henderson & St. Louis Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 222, 501, 757.
Macon & Birmingham Railway.
Decision No. 108.
Macon, Dublin & Savannah Railroad.
Decision No. 108.
Maine Central Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 147, 222, 426, 501, 630, 721, 757.
Manistee & North-Eastern Railroad.
Decision No. 108.
311
Manistique & Lake Superior Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119, Add. 3 to Decision No. 147, Decision No. 299.
Manufacturers Railway.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
Maryland, Delaware & Virginia Railway.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 147, 299, 721.
Memphis, Dallas & Gulf Railroad.
Decision No. 108.
Michigan Air Line Railway.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
Michigan Central Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 88, 119, 147, 175, 208, 299, 501, 583, 594, 657, 658, 707, Add. 1 to Decision
No. 757, Decision Nos. 764, 788, 804, 812, 829.
Middletown & Hummelstown Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 147, 299.
Middletown & Unionville Railroad.
Decision No. 108.
Midland Valley Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 126, Add. 1 to Decision No. 222, Decision Nos. 501, 721, 757, 891.
Midland Terminal Railway.
Decision No. 108.
Milwaukee Terminal.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 147, 222, 299, 357, 501, 597, 618, 630, 721, 725, 757.
Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 147, 185, 186, 222, 291, 299, 382, 385, 501, 630, 707, 721, 725, 810.
Minneapolis Western Railway.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
Minnesota & International Railway.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 147, 222, 299, 501, 721.
Minnesota, Dakota & Western Railway.
Decision No. 108.
Minnesota Transfer Railway.
Decision No. 630.
Mineral Range Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 147, 222, 299, 501, 630, 721.
Mississippi Central Railroad.
•
Add. 4 to Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2,
Decision No. 119.
312
Mississippi River & Bonne Terre Railway.
Decision No. 108.
Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 94, 119, 147, 173, 200, 205, 222, 299, 401, 467, 501, 630, 634, 674, 675, 707,
719, 721, 725, 741, 742, 757, 766, 772, 773, 774, 836, 837, 847, 852.
Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway of Texas.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 173, 205, 222, 501, 630, 707, 721, 725, 757.
Missouri & North Arkansas Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 90, 119, 724.
Missouri Pacific Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 53, 114, 119, 132, 147, 156, 157, 158, 159, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167,
172, 182, 209, 222, 252, 255, 256, 260, 299, 325, 355, 358, 368, 386, 402, 409,
501, 506, 516, 630, 707, 721, 776, 840, 841, 919.
Missouri Valley & Blair Railway & Bridge Company.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
Mobile & Ohio Railway.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 222, 328, 384, 501, 560, 721.
Monongahela Railway.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 147, 222, 299, 501, 630, 721.
Montpelier & Wells River Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
Morenci Southern Railway.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
Morgan's Louisiana & Texas R. R. & S. S. Co.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 147, Add. 4 to Decision No. 222, Decision Nos. 299, 707.
Muncie Belt Railway.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 147, 299.
Narragansett Pier Railroad.
Decision No. 108.
Nashville Terminals.
Decision No. 630.
Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railroad.
Decision No, 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 87, 119, 147, 204, 222, 299, 300, 381, 501, 502, 603, 707, 757, 938.
Nevada Northern Railway.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
New Iberia & Northern Railway.
Decision Nos. 147, 299, 725, 726, 757.
New Jersey & New York Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 147, 222, 299, 501, 707.
313
New Orleans & Northeastern Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 222, 721.
New Orleans Great Northern Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 222, 290, 757.
New Orleans Terminal Company.
Decision No. 222.
New Orleans, Texas & Mexico Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 147, 180, 299, 726, 757.
New River, Holston & Western.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
New York Central Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 4, 10, 11, 37, 111, 119, 147, 216, 222, 247, 251, 299, 356, 391, 392, 393, 407,
415, 416, 417, 420, 424, 501, 601, 619, 630, 632, 633, 707, 721, Add. 1 to Decision
No. 725, Decision No. 731, Add. 1 to Decision No. 757, Decision Nos. 768, 830.
New York & Long Branch Railroad.
Decision No. 883.
New York, Chicago & St. Louis Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 222, Add. 2 to Decision No. 630.
New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 4, 46, 119, 147, Add. 2 to Decision No. 222, Decision Nos. 299, 426, Add.
1 to Decision No. 501, Decision Nos. 531, 578, 630, 707, 757, 800.
New York, Ontario & Western Railway.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 147, 222, 299, 482.
New York, Philadelphia & Norfolk Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
New York, Susquehanna & Western Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 147, 222, 299, 501, 553, 707.
New York, Westchester & Boston Railway.
Decision No. 33.
Norfolk & Portsmouth Belt Line Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119, Add. 3 to Decision No. 147, Decision No. 299.
Norfolk Southern Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 222.
Norfolk & Western Railway.
Decision No. 2, Int. 1 to Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19
to Decision No. 2, Decision Nos. 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 71,
72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 119, 147, 222, 231, 278, 279, 284,
285, 288, 299, 301, 306, 501, 505, 507, 521, 534, 541, 542, 585, 630, 645, 725,
759, 786, 889.
Northeast Oklahoma Railroad.
Decision No. 108.
Northeast Pennsylvania Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 147, 299.
314
Northern Alabama Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 721.
Northern Alabama Railway.
Decision No. 222.
Northern Pacific Railway.
Decision No. 2, Int. 13 to Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19
to Decision No. 2, Decision Nos. 119, 147, 168, 169, 222, 299, 480, 501, 707, 721,
946, 947.
Northern Pacific Terminal Co. of Oregon.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
Northwestern Pacific R. R.
Decision Nos. 347, 348, 491, 501, 721, 757, 887.
Ogden Union Railway & Depot Company.
Decision Nos. 119, 222, 501, 630.
Ohio River & Western Railway.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
Orange & Northwestern Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 147, 299, 725, 726, 757.
Oregon Electric Railway.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 501, 630, 721.
Oregon Short Line Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 147, 222, 299, 501, 630, 721, 757.
Oregon Trunk Railway.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 501, 630, 721.
Oregon Union Railroad & Depot Company.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2.
Oregon-Washington Railroad & Navigation Company.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 119, 147, 212, 222, 299, 310, 311, 312,
313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 501, 550, 630, 721, 757.
Pacific Coast Railroad.
Decision No. 108.
Pacific Electric Railway Company.
Decision No. 33.
Panhandle & Santa Fe Railway.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 147, Add. 1 to Decision No. 222, Decision Nos. 501, 630, 707, 721.
Paris & Great Northern Railway.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
Pennsylvania System.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 4, 119, 147, 218, Add. 1 to Decision No. 218, Decision Nos. 220, 262, 263,
264, 265, 266, 299, 411, Add. 1 to Decision No. 501, Decision Nos. 515, 517,
570, 571, 707, 721, 725, 803, 916.
Peoria & Pekin Union Railway Company.
Add. 1 to Decision No. 222.
315
Peoria Railway Term. Company.
Decision No: 721.
Pere Marquette Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 147, Add. 1 to Decision No. 222, Decision Nos. 299, 380, 388, 389,
390, 394, 395, 501, 509, 533, 536, 555, 556, 557, 565, 566, 567, 574, 577, 630,
640, 707, 721, 725, 730, 944, 945.
Perkiomen Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 147, 299.
Philadelphia & Beach Haven Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
Philadelphia & Chester Valley Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 147, 299.
Philadelphia & Reading Railway.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 147, 292, 299, 483, 832.
Philadelphia, Bethlehem & New England Railroad.
Decision No. 108.
Philadelphia, Newtown & New York Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 147, 299.
Pickering Valley Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 147, 299.
Piedmont & Northern Railway.
Decision No. 33.
Pierre & Fort Pierre Bridge Company.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
Pierre, Rapid City & Northwestern Railway.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
Pine Bluff & Arkansas River Ry.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 757.
Pittsburg & Lake Erie R. R.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 147, 299, 492, 596, Add. 1 to Decision No. 757.
Pittsburg & Shawmut R. R.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
Pittsburg & West Virginia Railway.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119,147, 299.
Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
Pittsburg, Shawmut & Northern Ry.
Decision No. 721.
Pontiac, Oxford & Northern R. R.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
316
Portland Terminal Co.
-Decision Nos. 137, 222, 299, 426, 501, 630, 757, 838.
Port Reading R. R.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 147, 299.
Potean Valley R. R.
Decision Nos. 147, 299.
Puget Sound & Willapa Harbor.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
Pullman Co.
Add. No. 5 to Decision No. 2, Add No. 6 to Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision
No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision Nos. 107, 119, 174, 427 to 455,
inclusive.
Quincy, Omaha & Kansas City R. R.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
Railway Transfer Co., of City of Minneapolis.
Decision Nos. 147, 299.
Raleigh & Charleston R. R.
Decision No. 108.
Reading & Columbia R. R.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 147, 299.
Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac R. R.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Decision Nos. 56, 57, Int. 19 to
Decision No. 119, Decision Nos. 213, 222, 241, 286, 501, 707, 725, 757.
Rio Grande, El Paso & Santa Fe R. R.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 147, Add. 1 to Decision No. 222, Decision Nos. 299, 501, 630, 707, 721.
Rio Grande Southern R. R.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 147, 299.
Rosslyn Connecting R. R.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
Rupert & Bloomsburg, R. R.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 147, 299.
Rutland R. R.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Decision Nos. 47, 48, 49, Int. 19
to Decision No. 2, Decision Nos. 119, 147, 222, 299, 501, 630, 721, 757.
St. Clair Terminal.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
St. John's River Terminal Co.
Decision No. 222.
St. Johnsburg & Lake Champlain R. R.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
St. Joseph & Grand Island Ry.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 147, 222, 299, 501, 630, 721, 757.
317
•
St. Joseph Belt Ry.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 922.
St. Joseph Terminal R. R.
Decision Nos. 501, 630.
St. Joseph Union Depot R. R.
Decision Nos. 663, 929.
St. Louis & O'Fallon Ry.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
St. Louis, Brownsville & Mexico Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 147, 299, 725, 726, 757.
St. Louis Refrigerator Car Co.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
St. Louis-San Francisco Ry,
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Decision No. 39, Int. 19 to Decision
No. 2, Decision Nos. 119, 131, 147, 170, 191, 192, 203, 222, 299, 465, 471, 473,
474, 501, 537, 576, 610, 630, 721, 783, 874 to 879, inclusive.
St. Louis, San Francisco & Texas Ry.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 501, 630.
St. Louis Southwestern Ry.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 120, 149, 222, 462, 478, 479, 532, 558, 630, 721, 726, 757.
St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. of Texas.
Decision Nos. 630, 721, 757.
St. Louis & Hannibal Railroad.
Decision Nos. 108, 342, 514.
St. Louis, Troy & Eastern R. R.
Add. 2 to Decision No. 501.
St. Paul Union Depot Co.
Decision Nos. 630, 824.
Salt Lake City Union Depot & Railroad Company.
Decision Nos. 147, 299.
San Antonio & Aransas Pass Railway Company.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
San Antonio, Uvalde & Gulf Railway Company.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 222, 501, 552, 831.
San Diego & Arizona Railway Company.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 222, 228, 721.
Sandy River & Rangeley Lakes Railroad.
Decision No. 108.
Sandy Valley & Elkhom Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
Seaboard Air Line Railway.
Decision No. 2, Int. 10 to Decision No. 2, Int. 11 to Decision No. 2, Int.
12 to Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 147, 222, 299, 501, 721, 757.
!
318
Seattle, Port Angeles & Western Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
Sharpsville Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
Sioux City Terminal Ry.
Decision No. 413.
South Buffalo Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
Southeastern Express Co.
Decision Nos. 723, 821, 822, 949.
Southern Pacific Lines in Texas & Louisiana.
Decision Nos. 147, 188, Add. 4 to Decision No. 222, Decision Nos. 243, 253,
261, 289, 299, 340, 376, 408, 476, Add. 1 to Decision No. 501, Decision Nos.
546, 554, 692 to 695, inclusive, 707, 721, 757, 794, 943.
Southern Pacific Railway.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 16, 19, 20, 38, 119, 147, 199, Add. 4 to Decision No. 222, Decision Ncs.
239, 246, 268, 269, 293, 299, 303, 318, 319, 320, 321, 341, 350, 372, 375, 378, 379,
400, 423, 458, 459. 466, 501, 510, 511, 512, 513, 520, 535, 561, 562, 580, 622,
630, 707, 721, 725, 726, 737, 738, 739, 756, 757, 798, 815, 820, 827, 828, 866, 887,
903, 924, 935, 940, 941, 942.
Southern Pacific Terminal Company.
Decision No. 147, Add. 4 to Decision No. 222, Decision No. 707.
Southern Railway.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 122, 222, 277, 721.
Spokane & Eastern Railway & Power Company.
(Inland Empire Railroad)
Decision No. 33.
Spokane International Railway Company.
Decision No. 108.
Spokane, Portland & Seattle Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 322, 501, 630, 721.
Staten Island Rapid Transit Company.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 147, 299, 707, 725, 757.
Stony Creek Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 147, 299.
Sullivan County Railroad.
Decision No. 1, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
Sumpter Valley Railway.
Decision No. 108.
Susquehanna & New York Railroad.
Decision Nos. 108, 721.
Sussex Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
319
Sylvania Central Railway.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
Tacoma Eastern Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
Tallulah Falls Railway.
Decision No. 108.
Tamaque, Hazelton & Northern Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 147, 299.
Tampa & Gulf Coast Railroad.
Decision No. 108.
Tampa Northern Railroad.
Decision No. 108.
Tennessee, Alabama & Georgia Railroad.
Decision No. 108.
Tennessee Central Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 147, Int. 2 to Decision No. 119, Decision Nos. 299, 501.
Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis.
Decision No. 2, Int. 2 to Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19
to Decision No. 2, Decision Nos. 40, 123, 202, 222, 501, 611, 621, 630, 707, 711,
725.
Texarkana & Ft. Smith Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 147, 222, 299, 721, 725, 757.
Texas & New Orleans Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 147, Add. 4 to Decision No. 222, Decision Nos. 299, 707.
Texas & Pacific Railway.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 55, 93, 119, 153, Add. 1 to Decision No. 222, Decision Nos. 227, 398, 414,
501, 551, 593, 630, 706, 715, 721, 725, 757, 894.
Texas City Terminal Company.
Decision No. 108.
Texas Midland Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 135, 147, 299.
The Direct Navigation Company.
Decision Nos. 147, 299.
Toledo & Ohio Central Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 147, 222, 299, 349, 425, 499, 501, 630, 707, 721, 757, 816, 892.
Toledo, Peoria & Western Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 222, 501, 630.
Toledo, St. Louis & Western Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
Toledo, Saginaw & Muskegon Railway.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
320
Toledo Terminal Railroad Company.
Decision Nos. 222, 630.
Trans-Mississippi Terminal Company.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 630.
Trinity & Brazos Valley Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 222, 339, 501, 630, 721, 910.
Tug River & Kentucky Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
Ulster & Delaware Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
Union Pacific Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 58, 119, 147, 222, 299, 330, 345, 501, 630, 712, 721, 757.
Union Railroad Company of Baltimore.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
Union Stock Yards of Omaha.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
Union Terminal Co. of Dallas, Texas.
Decision No. 791.
United States & Canada Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
Vermont Valley Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
Vicksburg, Shreveport & Pacific Railway.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119, Add. 4 to Decision No. 222, Add. 1 to Decision No. 501, Decision Nos.
721, 757.
Virginia & Truckee Railway.
Decision No. 108.
Virginian-Carolina Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
Virginian Railway.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 233, 488, 501,326, 757.
Wabash, Chester & Western Railroad.
Decision No. 108.
Wabash Railway.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 147, 194, 222, 248, 271, 299, 501, 530, 620, 707, 721, 725, 757.
Wadley Southern Railway.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
Washington & Old Dominion Railway.
Decision No. 33.
321
Washington & Vandermere Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
Washington Terminal Company.
Decision No. 176.
Watertown & Sioux Falls Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
Waynesburg & Washington Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
Weatherford, Mineral Wells & Northwestern Railway.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
West Side Belt Railway.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 147, 299.
Western Maryland.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 44, 119, 140, 141, 143, 147, 222, 299, 366, 367, 377, 501, 707, 721, 725, 757,
811, 920.
Western Pacific Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 20, 119, 147, 222, 299, 501, 630, 707, 721, 757, 797, 887.
West Jersey & Seashore Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
Western Railway of Alabama.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
Wheeling & Lake Erie Railway.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119, Add. 4 to Decision No. 222, Decision Nos. 333, 501, 630, 757, 893.
Wheeling Terminal Railway.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
Wichita Falls & Northwestern Railway.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 147, 173, 205, 222, 299, 501, 630, 707, 721, 725, 757.
Wichita Falls, Range & Fort Worth R. R.
Decision No. 721.
Wichita Valley Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 147, Add. 1 to Decision No. 222, Decision Nos. 299, 501, 630, 721, 757.
Wilkesbarre & Eastern Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nos. 119, 147, 222, 299, 501, 553, 707.
Williamson & Pond Creek Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
Winston Salem Southbound Railway Company.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
Wood River Branch Railroad.
Decision No. 108.
322
Wyɔming & Northwestern Railway.
Decision Nɔ. 2, Int. 15 tɔ Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
Yadkin Railroad.
Decision No. 108.
Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nɔs. 119, 147, 222, 299, 308, 477, Add. 1 to Decision No. 501, Decision Nos.
630, 707, 721, 725, 757.
York Harbor & Beach Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
No. 119.
Zanesville & Western Railroad.
Decision No. 2, Int. 15 to Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision
Nɔs. 119, 147, 299, 501, 630, Add. 1 to Decision No. 721, Decision Nos. 757, 892.
323
DECISIONS OF THE LABOR BOARD SEPARATED AMONG
THE VARIOUS ORGANIZATIONS PARTIES TO THE RE-
SPECTIVE DECISIONS.
American Federation of Railroad Workers.
Decision Nos. 37, 70, 111, 119, 147, 292, 327, 349, 425, 587, 596, 597, 618,
802, 803, 892, 893.
American Association of Railroad Ticket Agents.
Decision No. 147.
American Train Dispatchers' Association.
Decision Nos. 5, 6, 7, 33, 51, 89, 90, 108, 119, 121, 122, 147, 152, 195, 247,
248, 271, 272, 273, 274, 364, 564, 623, 625, 635, 639, 676, 720, 721, 724, 775,
781, 785, 834, 848, 849, 850, 851, 852, 866, 883, 884, 919, 938.
Association of Colored Railway Trainmen.
Decision Nos. 119, 307.
Brotherhood of Dining & Sleeping Car Employees Union.
Decision No. 54.
Brotherhood of Dining Car Conductors.
Decision Nos. 827, 828.
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers.
Decision No. 2, Ints. Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19 and
22 to Decision No. 2, Decision Nos. 3, 10, 11, 15, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28,
29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 52, 55, 85, 89, 90, 93, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101,
102, 103, 104, 105, 108, 119, 121, 147, 148, 175, 214, 229, 290, 299, 308, 310,
311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 326, 480, 482, 483, 485, 486, 488, 494, 550,
719, 724, 772, 773, 774.
Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen.
Decision No. 2, Ints. 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 22 to
Decision No. 2, Decision Nos. 10, 11, 15, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30,
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 52, 55, 85, 89, 90, 93, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103,
104, 105, 108, 119, 121, 147, 148, 175, 214, 229, 290, 299, 308, 310, 311, 312, 313,
314, 315, 316, 317, 326, 480, 482, 483, 485, 486, 488, 494, 528, 550, 719, 724,
772, 773, 774, 886.
Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators & Paper Hangers of America.
Decision No. 414.
Brotherhood of Railway & Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express & Station
Employees.
Decision No. 2, Ints. 2, 15 and 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision Nos. 5, 8, 9, 12,
13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 33, 38, 39, 43, 44, 45, 46, 50, 53, 86, 87, 89, 108, 111, 113,
119, 121, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140,
141, 142, 147, 150, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167,
168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 177, 178, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 189, 190, 191,
192, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 203, 211, 213, 217, 220, 225, 235, 236, 237,
238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 268, 269,
270, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 294,
295, 296, 297, 298, 304, 305, 306, 343, 344, 345, 359, 360, 361, 362, 363, 366,
367, 368, 369, 370, 371, 372, 373, 375, 377, 378, 379, 380, 382, 384, 385, 386,
387, 388, 389, 390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 426, 457, 458, 459, 460, 461,
462, 463, 464, 465, 466, 467, 468, 469, 470, 471, 472, 473, 474, 475, 476, 477,
478, 479, 502, 503, 505, 506, 507, 508, 509, 510, 511, 512, 513, 531, 532, 533,
534, 535, 536, 537, 538, 554, 555, 556, 557, 558, 559, 560, 561, 562, 565, 566,
567, 568, 569, 570, 571, 572, 573, 574, 575, 576, 577, 578, 582, 583, 605, 606,
607, 608, 610, 612, 613, 614, 615, 616, 617, 621, 622, 624, 626, 627, 628, 630,
632, 634, 636, 637, 638, 640, 641, 642, 643, 652, 653, 654, 655, 656, 657, 658,
324
659, 660, 661, 662, 663, 664, 665, 666, 667, 668, 669, 670, 671, 672, 674, 675,
677, 678, 679, 680, 682, 683, 684, 685, 686, 687, 688, 689, 690, 691, 692, 693,
694, 695, 696, 697, 698, 699, 700, 701, 702, 703, 704, 705, 722, 723, 727, 728,
729, 730, 731, 732, 733, 734, 735, 736, 737, 738, 739, 740, 741, 742, 743, 744,
745, 746, 747, 748, 749, 750, 751, 752, 753, 754, 755, 756, 758, 759, 760, 761,
762, 763, 764, 766, 767, 776, 782, 783, 784, 786, 787, 788, 790, 791, 817, 818,
819, 820, 821, 822, 823, 824, 829, 835, 836, 839, 840, 841, 842, 843, 844, 845,
846, 847, 853, 854, 855, 856, 857, 858, 859, 860, 863, 865, '868, 869, 870, 871, 872,
874, 875, 876, 877, 878, 879, 880, 881, 882, 888, 901, 904, 905, 906, 908, 909,
911, 912, 913, 914, 915, 917, 918, 929, 931 to 937, inc., 940 to 945, inc., 948.
Brotherhood of Railway Carmen of America.
Decision No. 2, Ints. 19 and 20 to Decision No. 2, Decision Nos. 5, 15, 33,
89, 90, 108, 111, 119, 121, 147, 222, 290, 724.
Brotherhood of Railroad Station Employees.
Decision Nos. 111, 119, 147, 529, 630, 633, 765, 838.
Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen.
Decision No. 2, Ints. 8 and 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision Nos. 5, 15, 21, 22,
23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 52, 56, 57, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64,
65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 85, 89, 90, 106, 108,
119, 121, 147, 148, 175, 214, 217, 229, 290, 299, 318, 319, 320, 321, 322, 323, 324,
346, 347, 348, 481, 484, 487, 491, 493, 494, 495, 496, 497, 498, 526, 527, 528,
718, 719, 724, 772, 773, 774, 886.
Brotherhood of Railway Signalmen of America.
Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision Nos. 15, 33, 111, 119,
147, 207, 226, 252, 293, 356, 407, 648, 707, 709, 795, 800, 801, 903, 924.
Federal Labor Union (A. F. L.).
Decision No. 111.
Ferry Boatmen's Union of California.
Decision Nos. 20, 887.
International Alliance of Amalgamated Sheet Metal Workers.
Decision No. 2, Ints. Nos. 19 and 20 to Decision No. 2, Decision Nos. 5, 15,
33, 89, 90, 108, 119, 121, 147, 222, 290, 724.
International Association of Machinists.
Decision No. 2, Ints. 19 and 20 to Decision No. 2, Decision Nos. 5, 15, 33,
89, 90, 108, 119, 121, 147, 222, 290, 724.
International Association of Railroad Supervisors of Mechanics.
Decision Nos. 119, 147, 214, 419, 629, 631, 726.
International Association of Railroad Supervisory Foremen.
Decision No. 214.
International Brotherhood of Blacksmiths, Drop Forgers & Helpers.
Decision No. 2, Ints. 19 and 20 to Decision No. 2, Decision Nos. 5, 15, 33,
89, 90, 108, 111, 119, 121, 147, 222, 290, 724.
International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders & Helpers of
America.
Decision No. 2, Ints. 19 and 20 to Decision No. 2, Decision Nos. 5, 15, 33,
89, 90, 108, 119, 121, 147, 222, 290, 724.
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.
Decision No. 2, Ints. Nos. 19 and 20 to Decision No. 2, Decision Nos. 5, 15,
33, 89, 90, 108, 111, 119, 121, 147, 222, 290, 724.
International Brotherhood of Stationary Firemen and Oilers.
Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision Nos. 5, 15, 111, 119, 147,
520, 725.
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Stablemen & Helpers of
America.
Decision Nos. 3, 217, 722.
325
International Longshoremen's Association.
Decision Nos. 147, 816.
International Moulders Union of North America.
Decision No. 147.
International Union of Steam & Operating Engineers.
Decision Nos. 119, 147, 202, 256, 415, 416, 417, 716, 830.
Knights of Labor.
Decision Nos. 147, 549, 651, 770.
Lighter Captains' Union, Local 996, Brooklyn, N. Y.
Decision No. 3.
Marine Engineers' Beneficial Association.
Decision Nos. 20, 887.
National Association of Railway Mechanics Helpers, Laborers & Freight Handlers.
Decision No. 119.
National Federation of Railway Trainmen.
Decision No. 119.
National Order of Locomotive Firemen.
Decision No. 119.
National Organization Masters, Mates and Pilots of America.
Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision Nos. 2, 15, 119, 147, 887.
Order of Railroad Station Agents.
Decision Nos. 119, 147.
Order of Railroad Telegraphers.
Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision Nos. 5, 15, 17, 33, 89,
90, 108, 119, 121, 131, 147, 179, 193, 194, 214, 221, 222, 267, 290, 302, 365, 374,
376, 381, 383, 530, 553, 563, 609, 611, 619, 620, 724, 757, 825, 826, 832, 837,
861, 862, 867, 873, 885, 910, 916, 930.
Order of Railroad Telegraphers & Dispatchers, Agents and Signalmen.
Decision No. 119.
Order of Railway Conductors.
Decision No. 2, Int. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision Nos. 5, 15, 21, 22, 23, 24,
25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 52, 56, 57, 59, 60, 61, 82, 83, 84, 85, 90,
108, 119, 121, 147, 148, 175, 214, 229, 290, 299, 318, 319, 320, 321, 322, 323, 324,
346, 347, 348, 481, 487, 491, 493, 494, 495, 497, 498, 718, 719, 724, 772, 773,
774, 789.
Order of Railway Expressmen.
Decision Nos. 3, 147, 217, 673, 681, 722, 900, 909.
Order of Sleeping Car Conductors.
Decision No. 107.
Railroad Yardmasters of America.
Decision Nos. 119, 147, 499.
Railway Coach & Car Cleaners.
Decision No. 111.
Railway Employees' Department, A. F. of L.
Decision No. 2, Ints. 3 and 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision Nos. 5, 15, 33,
37, 89, 90, 108, 109, 110, 111, 119, 121, 129, 145, 146, 147, 153, 154, 155, 174,
175, 181, 205, 206, 211, 212, 214, 218, 219, 222, 227, 234, 259, 290, 291, 338,
341, 350, 353, 357, 399, 400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 409, 410, 421, 422, 423,
424, 427, 428, 429, 430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439, 440, 441,
442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449, 450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 504, 516,
525, 539, 540, 541, 542, 543, 544, 545, 580, 581, 584, 585, 586, 590, 591, 598,
599, 708, 712, 724, 768, 792, 793, 796, 797, 810, 811, 812, 813, 814, 815, 833,
889, 890, 895, 920, 921, 922, 923, 925, 926, 927, 928, 946, 947.
326
Railway Express Drivers, Chauffeurs, Conductors and Helpers, Local No. 720
of Chicago Teamsters' Union.
Decision Nos. 3, 112, 151, 217, 722, 864, 934.
Railway Men's International Benevolent Industrial Association.
Decision No. 119.
Switchmen's Union of North America.
Decision No. 2, Int. No. 19 to Decision No. 2, Decision Nos. 15, 119, 147, 299.
Terminal, Baggage, Mail Handlers & Station Employees (American Federation
of Labor).
Decision No. 176.
United Association of Railway Employees of North America.
Decision Nos. 147, 489, 490, 492, 500.
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America.
Decision No. 147.
United Brotherhood Maintenance of Way Employees & Railroad Shop Laborers
Decision No. 2, Ints. 1, 19 and 21, to Decision No. 2, Decision Nos. 5, 15,
33, 40, 41, 42, 47, 48, 49, 58, 88, 89, 91, 92, 94, 108, 111, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118,
119, 120, 121, 128, 130, 143, 144, 147, 149, 180, 188, 204, 208, 209, 210, 214.
216, 223, 224, 230, 231, 232, 233, 249, 250, 251, 253, 254, 255, 257, 258, 260,
261, 289, 300, 301, 303, 309, 325, 328, 329, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336.
337, 339, 340, 342, 351, 352, 354, 355, 358, 397, 398, 406, 408, 411, 412, 413,
418, 420, 456, 501, 514, 515, 517, 518, 519, 521, 522, 523, 524, 546, 547, 548,
551, 552, 579, 588, 589, 592, 593, 594, 595, 600, 601, 602, 603, 604, 644, 645,
646, 647, 649, 650, 706, 710, 711, 713, 714, 715, 717, 724, 769, 771, 777, 778,
779, 780, 794, 798, 799, 804, 805, 806, 807, 808, 809, 891, 894, 896, 897, 898,
899, 902.
Unorganized Groups of Employees.
Decision Nos. 187, 215, 228.
327
INDEX-DIGEST OF DECISIONS OF UNITED STATES
RAILROAD LABOR BOARD. Compiled by Bureau of
Information of the Southeastern Railways. Published by
Railway Accounting Officers Association, 1116 Woodward
Building, Washington, D. C. 327 pages; 6 in. by 9 in.;
bound in paper. Price 50 cents. In lots of 100 or more,
25 cents each.
The present edition of the Index-Digest succeeds the first
edition gotten out last September. The book gives the list
of every decision rendered by the Labor Board up to May 1,
1922. References are given so that the full text may be
obtained. Experience has demonstrated, however, that the
use of this Index-Digest eliminates the time and labor of read-
ing through the full text of the decisions.
Under alphabetical subject headings it gives a summary
of every decision relating to each subject-containing all the
necessary practical information that anyone would ordinarily
have occasion to use. This arrangement enables one readily
to obtain desired data regarding decisions.
The new edition has the added feature of two sections, respec-
tively showing by roads and by labor organizations the deci-
sions to which each has been a party. These two additions
should prove useful in cases where the particular decision or
principle involved is remembered by the name of the labor
organization or the name of the railroad. In other words, the
publication is indexed and cross-indexed in almost every
conceivable way.
The publication has been issued by the Railway Accounting
Officers Association primarily because of the desirability of
placing information of this sort in convenient form in the hands
of the accounting officers who must be able to obtain expedi-
tiously and accurately such information in connection with
auditing payrolls, etc. It is self-evident that the publication
should be of equally great value to executives, operating officers,
shop accountants, timekeepers, etc., and in general to officers
in all departments of railway work. The value of the com-
pilation will further be emphasized when it is realized how
much ground has been covered in the many decisions of the
Labor Board.
The Railway Accounting Officers Association has performed
a real service to the entire railway field in taking it upon itself
to issue a publication of this kind. The fact that the book
includes the decisions up to as recent a date as May 1 is also
noteworthy.-Railway Age.
The supply available is limited. Orders should, therefore, be for-
warded promptly.
Remittance should accompany the order, if convenient.

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
3 9015 02022 4534
Transportation
HD
rary
5503
.A33
Index
U.S.Railroad labor
board. Decisions.
(Indexes)
Index-digest of
decisions of United
States Railroad
labor board to Mav
1 1000
DATE DUE
Copies of this book may be obtained from
Railway Accounting Officers Association
1116 Woodward Building
At the following prices:
Washington, D. C.
In quantities of 100 or more, 25 cents each.
In quantities of less than 100, 50 cents each.
Remittance should accompany the order, if convenient.