AWARDS 79 - USELESS FOR ORGANIZATION TO FILE CLAIM ON ISSUE CONTAINED IN A PENDING SECTION 6 NOTICE

Second Division Award No. 6324 (Harr)

"The Carrier points out, in its's (sic) Submission to the Board, that on September 1, 1970, the Organization served a Section 6 Notice upon the Carrier requesting that the Carman's Classification of Work Rule be amended to specifically provide that wrecking service was reserved exclusively to Carmen. They also asked to amend Rule 128 to provide for a penalty payment when other than members of wrecking crews performed wrecking service.

"We believe that the serving of the Section 6 Notice was recognition by the Organization that the existing rules did not give Carmen the exclusive right to wrecking service. The Claim is not supported by the existing rules and there is no evidence in the record that Claimants had an exclusive right to the work in question. See Second Division Awards 4286, 4825, 4826, 5574 and 6286."

Public Law Board No. 274, Award No. 137 (Ritter)

"Also, it is noted that the employees had served a Section 6 notice on Carrier in a letter dated June 9, 1967, requesting the existing Agreement be revised by adding `the signing of bills of lading' to the Scope Rule. No Agreement was ever reached on this particular proposed rule. The awards are numerous to the effect that the asking for a rule change is an indication that the party requesting such rule change is aware of the fact that it does not have the authority to do what the proposed rule change would let that party do. See Award 15488 (Zumas), 16993 (McGovern), and 15394 (Hamilton) and others. This claim will be denied."

Third Division Award No. 16993 (McGovern)

"We are strengthened in our conclusion on this matter by the fact t6hat over the years, the Organization by means of a Section 6 notice has attempted to negotiate new rules, which, if adopted, would have included radio communication such as we have here within the Scope of the Agreement. The evidence and the awards involving the same parties and similar circumstances are persuasive that the Carrier did not violate their contract. Claim will be denied."

Third Division Award No. 15488 (Zumas)

"The Division has often stated that to ask for a rule change is one of the best ways to indicate in the party’s own estimation that is needed to supply the authority to do what the proposed language covers."

Third Division Award No. 15394 (Hamilton)

"It is significant to note that on February 20, 1961 and December 18, 1963, the Organization served formal notice under Section 6 of the Railway Labor Act, of its desire to change the Scope Rule, in regard to this question. Award 19372, a First Division award, says:

This Division often has stated that to ask for a rule change is one of the best ways to indicate in the party’s own estimation that it is needed to supply the authority to do what the proposed language covers.

***

Claim denied."