NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
SECOND DIVISION
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee John P. Devaney when award was rendered.
SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 2, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'
DEPARTMENT, A. F. OF L. (MACHINISTS)
DISPUTE: CLAIM OF EMPLOYES: That Machinist C. J. Dearasaugh, North Little Rock, Arkansas, be compensated in amount of forty hours (five days) at his regular rate of 86¢ per hour, account duties of laborers extended to include that of machinist classification of work.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Under date of August 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 29 and 30, 1938, at North Little Rock, Arkansas, 6 laborers were assigned to duties of dismantling locomotives 79, 132 and 2358. Following list of appurtenances were consigned to stock to be used on locomotives of corresponding class:
these locomotives during the scrapping process are serviceable or not, has no bearing upon the question at issue in this case, as all parts are scrapped and the process of distributing serviceable parts or non-serviceable parts is a function of the supply department and not of the mechanical department.
The employes' claim that a machinist be compensated for five days' time on the supposition that five days would have been sufficient time required of a machinist to remove appurtenances is theoretical in its entirety.
Our rule quoted in the statement of facts specifically provides that the work of scrapping engines may be performed by any class of available help under the direction of a foreman or mechanic. That is exactly what was done in this case. The rule does not contemplate separation of the labor expense involved in scrapping engines, designating certain parts that may or may not be usable from other parts that may or may not be usable to be handled by any specific class of employes, but to the contrary provides that the entire job of work of scrapping engines may be performed by any class of available help, the only obligation being that such labor that is used on the job, the work must be under the direction of a foreman or mechanic.
There is no rule in our wage agreement or past practice thereunder to sustain the employes' contentions and same should be properly denied by your Honorable Board.
FINDINGS: The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:
The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
Rule 46 allows the work of "scrapping" engines to be performed under the direction of a foreman by laborers. The word "foreman" added to this rule must be given a significant meaning.
By the terms of Rule 46 it must be held that the carrier has the right to do the work in the manner in which it was done in this case and the employes are held to have bargained away their right to have a machinist perform this work exclusively.