AWARDS 125 - CARRIER DECIDES HOW MUCH SUPERVISION NEEDED

Fourth Division Award No. 2521 (Weston)

". . . So far as the record shows, this appears to be a situation where Carrier has reasonably exercised its prerogative to decide that yardmaster supervisory functions are no longer required by the volume of work at Garrett, where no yard crews remain, train operations are primarily through operations and the small amount of switching performed is of a recurring and routine nature."

Fourth Division Award No. 2660 (Weston)

"The Carriers possess the right, in the absence of contractual commitments to the contrary, to determine the amount of supervision necessary for their operations and to eliminate positions when they decide, in their managerial discretion, that such action is required by the needs of the service, is well established (See Awards 1208, 1660, 2142 and 2521). Nothing contained in Carrier's Operating Rules nor in the Scope Rule, Rule 4 or any other provision of the Agreement limits that right in any material respect."

Public Law Board No. 3288, Award No. 1 (Lieberman)

". . . Further, it is indeed a fact that Carrier may determine when and if it may require supervision of its employees. In this Board's view, similar to the conclusions reached in the four prior cases preceding the current Scope Rule involving the same parties on this property, there is no evidence to indicate violation of the Agreement by Carrier's actions. Had the Chief Clerk been required to perform supervisory functions as specified in the Scope Rule, a different conclusion would have been reached. However, this was not the fact in this dispute. In the absence of further changes in the Scope Rule, it is hoped that this decision will finally put this matter to rest on the property."

Fourth Division Award No. 4855 (Zusman)

"A careful review of all the relevant arguments and facts reveals that there is no provision or language specific to the Scope Rule that prohibits Carrier's action. Nothing in the present language provides any classification of work protected herein. The Agreement is specific to hold that new positions under this Agreement could not be created for the purpose of evading the intent of this Agreement. Nothing prohibits the Carrier from determining the amount of supervision it feels is necessary for competitive economic purposes. This Board cannot find in these circumstances sufficient variance from recent Awards to reach any conclusion other than Carrier's action is not Agreement restricted.

"Even from a very narrow interpretation, the Board cannot find that the decision by the Carrier to reduce the supervision necessary was violative of Agreement language. First, it has often been held that the Carrier has the right to determine when and if full time supervision is necessary (Third Division Awards 26374, 11441; Fourth Division Awards 4677, 3503, 3403). Carrier's decision herein not to have a Supervisor was fully within its managerial discretion."