DISPUTE: CLAIM OF EMPLOYES: 1. That under the current agreement the Carrier improperly assigned the Sayre, Pennsylvapia wrecking crew and wrecking outfit on wrecking service at about one hundred yards west of Lacyville Passenger Station on July 31, 1951.
2. That accordingly the Carrier be ordered to compensate the Coxton wrecking crew composed of the following Carmen:
in the amount they would have earned if they were called to perform this wrecking service on July 31, 1951.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: On July 31, 1951, train SJ-2 eastbound at Lacyville, Pennsylvania, passenger station, and approximately 39 miles from Coxton, Pennsylvania, derailed two cars about 7:30 P.M. while setting off cars of train. The Sayre, Pennsylvania, wrecking outfit and wrecking crew were called at 8:00 P.M. July 31, and departed to the scene of this derailment, cleaned up the wreck and returned to their home station, arriving at 11:30 A.M. August 1.
crew performed the work . . ." In this instance, the regularly assigned crew with the exception of the engineer did not accompany the outfit. The award in that case sustained the claim for the difference between what claimants earned and what they would have earned had they accompanied the outfit.
The claim submitted in this dispute is clearly an attempt to gain by interpretation and award through this Division a new rule. This is not a function of this Division to perform, but is one that must be a matter of negotiation between the parties. In connection with such a question, the following, in part, was stated in the findings under Award No. 975 of this Division:
It is the position of the carrier the rules of the schedule agreement, the known practice of the parties to the agreement with respect to the calling and use of wrecking crews evidenced by decision rendered to the general chairman in a previous case in letter dated April 25 1950, included in this submission, and the precedent of previous review by this Division of similar questions as involvqd in this dispute, clearly establish the fact that this claim is without foundation or merit, and must accordingly be dismissed and 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. 1668-8 851
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
On July 31, 1951, two cars were derailed about one mile west of the depot at Lacyville, Pennsylvania. The wrecking crew from Sayre, Pennsylvania, was sent to clear the tracks. Claimants are carmen assigned to the Coxton, Pennsylvania, wrecking crew who assert that they should have been called to perform the work.
There is no dispute that claimants held seniority as carmen at Coxton and that by agreement they performed all minor car repairs within prescribed distances from Coxton. For these purposes, Lacyville was within the district assigned to carmen at Coxton. The claim here is that they were entitled to perform the wreck-train work performed by the Sayre wreck crew on the dates in question.
The carrier asserts that it has never restricted itself in the use of wreck trains and crews although it has made agreements with carmen in the respects noted. The carrier asserts that it has been long established practice to use available wreck crews to handle wrecks in the most expedient manner without respect to the their headquarters or location. The organization in effect admits this to be true prior to March 1, 1950, but asserts that on that date an agreement was made that when wrecks occur and a wreck crew is assigned in the seniority district of the point involved, the wreck crew in that seniority district would be used. This agreement, if one was made, does not appear to have been reduced to writing as between the carrier and the organization.
The organization relies upon a written inter-office communication between Mr. J. Davis, Car Department Foreman at Coxton, and Mr. C. L. Draper, the General Engine House Foreman at Coxton. The memorandum was written by Draper to Davis and states in part that "in the future when wrecks occur and we have a wreck crew assigned in the seniority district of the point involved, it will be necessary to use the wreck crew in that seniority district . " No such understanding appears to have been executed and delivered to the organization for the purpose of putting it on an agreement status. The carrier asserts that Draper wrote Davis through a misunderstanding with the master mechanic. But in any event, the carrier could have placed such a rule into effect unilaterally without obligating itself contractually to do so. It is clear that this memorandum cannot be given the dignity of any agreement that would support the claim. Consequently the practice of the carrier in using wreck crews without regard to seniority districts has not been restricted and no basis for a claim exists.