The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Carroll R. Daugherty when award was rendered.
SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 122, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'
DEPARTMENT, A. F. of L. (Electrical Workers)
DISPUTE: CLAIM OF EMPLOYES: 1. That the current agreement was violated when two Cincinnati Union Terminal Electricians were assigned on July 8, 1951 to apply 4-KW Generator Belts to Pullman Tourist Cars Nos. 3049 and 4259.
EMPLOYES, STATEMENT OF FACTS: Sometime after 11:00 P. M. on July 8, 1951, two electricians employed by the Cincinnati Union Terminal Company were assigned to apply 4-KW generator belts to Pullman tourist cars Nos. 3049 and 4259.
Pullman Company Electricians V. Costa, employed on the 9:00 A. M. to 5:30 P. M. shift, and L. J. Cleary, employed on the 7:00 A. M. to 3:30 A. M. shift, were available to perform this work on July 8, 1951, if called.
The agreement effective July 1, 1948, as subsequently amended, is controlling.
POSITION OF EMPLOYES: It is submitted that Rules 2, 5(b) and 37 of the current agreement were violated when other than Pullman Company
In this dispute the Company has shown that there has been no violation of Rules 2 or 5 of the Agreement as a result of the Company's inability to make available a Pullman electrician to perform the work of applying generator belts to Tourist cars 3049 and 4259 on July 8, 1951. Since the company had no advance notice that cars 3049 and 4259 would be in need of repairs upon arrival in Cincinnati, the performance of such work in the emergency by Cincinnati terminal electricians cannot successfully be construed as a violation of the above-mentioned rules of the agreement. Further, the company has shown that Rule 33 is not applicable to this dispute inasmuch as the rule relates solely to instances where Pullman employes are called to perform certain work. The rule is silent on the compensation an employe is due when the company fails to call him to perform work allegedly due him.
Awards of the National Railroad Adjustment Board establish that in emergency conditions management is not culpable if there was not sufficient time for the company to place its forces in line to perform the work in question. The record in the instant case is persuasive of the fact that the company had no advance notice that cars 3049 and 4259 were in need of repairs. Further, there was not time in the emergency in Cincinnati on July 8, 1951, to call a Pullman electrician to the station, which action would have delayed the departure of the second section of B&O train No. 11. Therefore, in the emergency, it was proper for terminal electricians to apply the generator belts.
Finally, even if the work properly should not have been performed by terminal electricians, the company does not agree that it is required to pay Electricians Costa and Cleary in the amount of 2:40 hours at the rate of time and one-half instead of at the straight time rate.
In view of these facts the company submits that the instant claim is without merit and should be denied.
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.
When on July 8, 1951, second B&O Train No. 11 arrived in Cincinnati Terminal at 11:59 P. M., 4-KW generator belts were found missing from Pullman tourist cars 3049 and 4259. At 11:30 P. M. of that day two Pullman electricians had been released from Terminal duty at their regular times. It appears also that a third Pullman electrician had been sent from Terminal duty to yard duty at that time. In the absence of a Pullman electrician when the train arrived, two Terminal electricians made the necessary repairs.
The carrier admits technical violation of its agreement with the organization but asks avoidance of penalty therefor because the carrier did not know that the train would arrive needing the above-mentioned belts. 1625-9 366
Applying to the instant case the principles and reasoning of our Awards Nos. 1601 and 1622, we find that the carrier violated the parties' agreement, the violation could have been avoided by proper controls, and the organization's claim should be sustained at pro rata rates in respect to the senior employe available for call.