Award No. 1612 Docket No. 1482 2-AT&SF-CM-'53

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

SECOND DIVISION

The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in

addition Referee Carroll R. Daugherty when award was rendered.

THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILWAY

COMPANY

DISPUTE: CLAIM OF EMPLOYES: 1. That under the current agreement Carman T. Andrade and Carman Helper V. N. Alarid were improperly assigned to a work week, Wednesday through Sunday with rest days of Monday and Tuesday.

2. That accordingly the carrier be ordered to:

a) Assign these employes to a proper work week, Monday through Friday with rest days of Saturday and Sunday.

b) Make these employes whole by compensating them additionally at the applicable overtime rates instead of straight time for the service which they were assigned to perform on each Saturday and each Sunday, retroactive to October 21, 1950.

c) Make these employes whole by compensating them additionally in the amount of eight (8) hours at the applicable rate of pay for each Monday and each Tuesday, retroactive to October 21, 1950, because they were laid off to equalize the time due to the assignment to work their proper rest days.

EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Prior to September 1, 1949, Carman (car repairer) T. Andrade and Carman Helper V. N. Alarid, hereinafter referred to as the claimants, worked regularly an assignment of six days per week, Monday through Saturday, first shift hours 8:00 A. M. to 12:00 Noon and 12:30 P. M. to 4:30 P. M. on the car department repair track located at Winslow, Arizona.

On or subsequent to September 1, 1949, these claimants were arbitrarily assigned by the carrier to a position as car repairer and helper on the first and only shift 8:00 A. M. to 12:00 Noon and 12:30 P. M. to 4:30 P. M. Wednesday through Sunday, with rest days of Monday and Tuesday at Winslow, Arizona, car department.

There is no assignment of carmen (car repairers) and helpers on either the second or third shift at Winslow car repair department, relief or otherwise.

[2057

with the principles enunciated by the Emergency Board. While the employes have repudiated the letter-understanding of October 6, 1950, reproduced in full in this submission, that letter-understanding related to assignments of Tuesday through Saturday and had no application whatsoever to the staggering of car repair forces to protect 7-days service which was fully explained in the carrier's submission in the case covering an identical claim from Wellington. What was said in that case applies with equal force and effect to this case.

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 parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.

After the 40-Hour Week Agreement became effective on September 1, 1949, Car Repairer T. Andrade and Carman Helper V. N. Alarid, claimants in this case, were assigned to Wednesday-Sunday work weeks, with rest days of Monday and Tuesday, on the carrier's "running" car repair tracks at Winslow, Arizona. Before the above-mentioned date these employes had been assigned to Monday-Saturday work weeks.

As in the case decided by Award No. 1599, the organization here has the burden of establishing that the carriers action was and is in violation of the letter of agreement of October 6, 1950, or of the provisions of the 40-Hour Week Agreement, signed by the parties.

For the reasons set forth in our Award No. 1599, we do not find that the organization has sustained this burden. We think the organization has failed to show that (1) the letter of agreement is controlling in respect to "running" car repairs of the sort involved in the instant case; (2) there is and has been, since September 1, 1949, no need for the assignment of the protested work weeks; and (3) such assignments are and have been in violation of the meaning and intent of the 40-Hour week rules.

AWARD