The Connecticut labor news., 1922-02-10
Overtime for Mainten- ance of Way Men Gle ar e d Up and Points of Seniority of Section FOremen Set tied.

ID. in minor cases handed down last week by able to the employees, 22 sustained the position of carriers, 7 were removed from the docket by consent, and re- manded back for further negotiation. Many disputes coming before the board are for infractions of the national agree ment during the period it was extended by addendum No. 2 to Decision No. ll9. Interpretation No. 2, covering this sub- ject in so far as it applies to nalnten- ance of way employees has just been an nounced governing claims for overtime payments, from July l, 1921, to Decem- Der l6, 1921, effective date ot Decision 5Ol. After quoting paragraph l of ad- dendum No. 2, the board says:
 "The pro rata overtime rate specified in that portion of addendum No. to de- cision No. 11o quoted in this decision shall apply for the period July to De- cember 16, 1921, except on carriers and for classes of employees having more favorable method of payment prior to the effective date of any supplement to Gen. eral Order No. 27 promulgated by the United States Railroad Administration, or that have reached an agreement pro viding a more favorable method of payment; in either event the more favor
 
 Prior to the pronulgation of any gen. eral order of the U. $. Railroad Ad- ministration relative to wages and work ing conditions, varying methods ot over time payment to maintenance employees were in effect on the various roads some having time and one-half after nine houre, others after ten hours and on still different bases. In addendum to decls- ion 1lo the board held that the pro rata rate for overtime twill not effect classes of employees of any carrier which have reached an agreement as to overtime rates, nor classes of employees of any carrier 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 Ad- ministration."
 The effect of the interpretation by the board IS that where rates better than pro rata for overtime prevailed prior to De cember l6 the employees shall be paid III that amount from July l, when the nat ion al agreement was abrogated and later extended by addendum No. 2. In a case filed by the Brotherhood ot Raiiray Clerks against the Chicago, h. dianapolis & St. Louis railroad the board sustained its right to jurisdiction over back wages due employees. Clerks 1n the freight office of the carrier at Chicago claimed pay for time worked over eight hours during the period from March l, 1920, to December l6, 1920, under an ex- iSting agreement.
 The carrier contended that the board had no Jurisdiction, inasmuch as 1t ln- volved claim for wages alleged to be due, and that 1t was matter tor the courts to determine under the working agreement between the Railway Clerks and the road. The decision of the board IS that "it has jurisdiction in this dispute and has authority to grant or deny the claim for overtime Then the bOarc proceeded to deny the claim of the clerks for overtime.
 There was case in which one mem Der of the railroad group filed dissent ing opinion, wherein the Railway Elm ployes' Department had a complaint against the Fort Smith & Western rail road. The question in dispute was ., re instatement of C. H. Drake, a boiler maker, dismissed February 27, 1921, for alleged violation of rule 25 of the Fed eral locomotive inspection laws. The evidence showed that the fault was wholly with the carrier, and the boarc held that the discharge was unjustltled Drake was ordered reinstated with se- niority rights and pay for time lost les: any amount he may have earned while away from the service. Board Member Horace Baker filed a dissenting opinion claiming that the boilermaker was incom petent.
 Senority rights of an employe accept ing a supervisory position was the dis pute between the Brotherhood of Main tenance of Way Employees and Railway Shop Laborers and the Michigan Cen tral Railroad Company. The evidence showed that Charles E. Tenner served in the capisity of section and extra gang foreman on the Saginaw division iron March, 1884, until May 28, 1912, when h. was promoted to assistant road1naster and in May, 1913, was reduced to genera foreman; that on March l, 1916, he wa again promoted to the position ot assls tant roadmaster, where he served unti March 28, 1921, when the position wa abolished He was then assigned by tn road to a job as section foreman a North Lansing, Mich displacing Del Canute, who had been employed as sec ton foreman at that point since Au gustl, 1918.
 The employees protested this action asserting that Fenner as assistant road master was an official of the carrier ant thereby had no seniority rights tha would permit him to replace foreman The carrier contended that 1t had ; right to return FeDner to a position o section foreman under the circumstances It was the decision of the board that h. was entitled to a position as section foreman, by displacing a junior Gin poin of service) foreman, and that Dell Can ute is entitled to retain his position a North Lansing, provided he is not tn junior section foreman on the seniorlt. list. Canute having held the job nor than three and one-half years, it is no likely that he is a junior.
 Was the position of personal stenog rapher to shop accountant at Mile City, Mont, within the scope of the na tional agreement of the Brotherhood Q ailway Clerks with the Chicago, Mil waukee & St. Paul Railway Company The board decides that it was. In Feb ruary, 1o1, Labonna Homewood clerl ;. 4La office nf the accountant. decide