THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILWAY
SYSTEM (Eastern Lines)
DISPUTE: CLAIM OF EMPLOYES: 1. That removing and applying car doors, roofs, ends, sides, truck side frames, wheels and similar work in connection with building and maintaining freight cars or the dismantling thereof for repairs, is Carmen's work under the current agreement.
2. That it is improper under the current agreement to assign other than Carmen to operate a derrick to assist Carmen in performing aforesaid work.
3. That accordingly the Carrier be ordered to assign Carmen to perform the aforementioned work in Items 1 and 2 hereof.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: At La Junta, Colorado, the carrier maintains facilities in the car department for building, maintaining and repairing freight cars, including a force of approximately 200 carmen, carmen apprentices and carmen helpers.
The carrier operates in this department, one gasoline powered self-propelled Rail Burro derrick, Model 30, 7% tons lifting capacity, to remove and replace car doors, roofs, ends, sides, truck side frames, wheels and other similar work to expedite the duties of carmen assigned to building, maintaining and dismantling cars for repairs.
Carman Helper C. L. West is assigned to operate the tool, who is working under the shop crafts' agreement dated August 1, 1945. He is not a carman at La Junta.
The agreement effective August 1, 1945, and subsequently amended, is controlling.
POSITION OF EMPLOYES: It is respectfully submitted to be, as described in the foregoing statement of facts, indisputable that this derrick operator is substituted for carmen and is assigned to perform carmen's work, defined as such in the classification of work provisions of Rule 102, particularly that part thereof which reads:
In conclusion the carrier respectfully requests the Second Division to dismiss the instant dispute for lack of jurisdiction on the grounds that it does not contain either the elements of a dispute growing out of a grievance or involving a question which requires the interpretation or application of an agreement or an agreement rule; reminds it that this Division has no power to nullify an agreement and that to sustain the employes' position would be, in effect, writing a new rule or giving a meaning to the contract not warranted by a literal reading thereof and clearly not intended when the agreement was negotiated.
Carrier respectfully requests that the employes' claim in the instant dispute be denied in its entirety for the reasons herein expressed.
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.
The facts, the issues, and the principles decisive of this case are substantially the same as those involved in Award No. 1502 (Docket No. 1396), adopted as of this date. In fact, except for the fact that the work involved was performed at a different point, there are no distinguishable features. For that reason, based on what is said and held in such award, we hold the instant claim must be denied.