SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 122, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'
DEPARTMENT, A. F. of L. (Electrical Workers)
DISPUTE: CLAIM OF EMPLOYES: 1. That under the current agreement the carrier improperly assigned two Car Cleaners to remove a set of batteries from a Pullman Car and moved four other sets of batteries on October 19, 1949.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: On October 19, 1949 at the Southern Pacific coach yard, Oakland, California, Assistant Foreman Wm. Welch furnished Car Cleaners Beasly, Check No. 46, and Judge, Check No. 493, with the necessary equipment and instructed them to remove a set of batteries from a Pullman car and move four other sets on to a shop truck.
Electricians Branco and Bradford, hereinafter referred to as the claimants, were assigned on the 9:00 A. M. to 5:30 P. M. shift with Wednesday as one of their rest days and were available to perform the work in question, if called, on Wednesday, October 19, 1949.
This dispute was handled with carrier officials designated to handle such affairs, who all declined to adjust the matter.
The agreement effective July 1, 1948, as subsequently amended, is controlling.
POSITION OF EMPLOYES: It is submitted that the action of the carrier in the instant dispute is contrary to the provisions of the current agreement when two car cleaners were assigned to the moving of batteries instead of electrical workers in accordance with Rule 5(b) which provides:
The company submits that the instant claim should be denied for the following reasons:
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 record discloses that on October 19, 1949, from 1:30 P. M. to 3:30 P. M., at its coach yard in Oakland, California, the company assigned two car cleaners, employes not covered by the current agreement, to assist the head electrician in moving batteries from a Pullman tourist car and in loading four sets of batteries upon a Pullman truck, paying them at the electrician helpers' rate. At the time the cleaners were utilized the claimant electricians were available to perform the work in question and the company had no electrician helpers assigned at such yard.
After careful examination of the record, and consideration of contentions advanced by the parties, we are convinced the current agreement must be construed as requiring the company to assign the work of moving batteries at the yard in question to electrical workers covered by its terms. Further construing the agreement we hold the term "electrical workers" as used therein covers and includes electrician helpers who, in the exercise of the company's discretion, may be assigned to perform such work in lieu of journeymen.
In explanation of its action the company asserts there is not enough work of the character involved to justify the assignment of an electrician helper at the Oakland yard, and further, that it has always followed the practice of temporarily promoting cleaners to do such work. Under the confronting facts neither of these reasons suffices to justify the carrier's action. Work encompassed within the scope of an agreement cannot be removed therefrom and assigned to employes not covered by its terms. This is so even though it becomes necessary to call a higher rated employe to perform it.
Based on what has been heretofore stated we find the company's action violated the agreement. Therefore, portions of the claim designated as 1 and 2(a) should be sustained in their entirety while 2(b) should be partially sustained with compensation limited to two hours and forty minutes pay for each claimant at the pro rata rate, that being the proper penalty rate for deprivation of work. 1530-14 40g