The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Lloyd H. Bailer when the award was rendered.
SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 6, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'
DEPARTMENT, A. F. OF L. (Machinsts)
DISPUTE: CLAIM OF EMPLOYES: 1. That the repairing and testing of Alco diesel engine fuel injection pumps is Machinists' work under the current agreement.
2. That about December 24, 1952 when the Carrier assigned the aforesaid work to a Chicago company, the current agreement was then violated and which thereby damaged its employes of the Machinists' craft.
3. That accordingly the Carrier be ordered to compensate, 'as a penalty for the aforementioned violation, Machinists Grant Copple and F. 0. Tubbs at their applicable rates of pay in the amount of hours equal to those the Chicago company paid to its employes for the performance of .the work in question, with a minimum of not less than 24 hours to each of these said employes.
EMPLOYES' ,STATEMENT OF FACTS: At Silvis, Illinois, the carrier maintains its largest diesel locomotive shop, which is fully equipped to make any and all repairs to diesel locomotive engines, including the component parts thereof. This shop consists of the general erecting floor, an overhauling department for diesel engines and appurtenances such as governors, compressors, heads, liners, and all other parts which are completely dismantled, repaired and reassembled.
However, in this particular engine overhauling department there is also located a fuel pump and injector room wherein Machinists Grant Copple and F. 0. Tubbs, hereinafter referred to as the claimants, were regularly assigned to overhaul injectors, overhaul and calibrate fuel pumps including those Alco fuel injection pumps involved in this dispute.
Notwithstanding these facilities, the carrier made the election on Wednesday, December 24, 1952, the day before Christmas, to do these two things, namely:
The agreement effective October 16, 1948, as subsequently amended, is controlling.
POSITION OF EMPLOYES: It is submitted that the foregoing statement of dispute is conclusively supported by the collective bargaining current agreement made in pursuance of the Amended Railway Labor Act because the work in question is stipulated in the above statement of facts and that such work is covered in the scope of the machinists' Classification of Work Rule 53 which, for ready reference, in applicable part reads:
It is moreover suffice to assert, without successful contradiction, that these fuel injection pumps come within and are subject to the provisions of the above rule; that it is indisputable that the parties have so jointly applied this rule; that the claimants were regularly assigned to perform said work Up to the close of their shift the day before Christmas, December 24, 1952, and that the election of the carrier to harm and damage its machinists at Christmas time through the arbitrary process of farming out their work is not contributable to the lack of adequate facilities and a skilled force of machinists with which to handle the work in a highly efficient manner. Nor was this mean action of the carrier founded upon any good cause or otherwise than the consequence of a mental ambition to damage its machinists' union through the means of totally disregarding the agreement rules presumed to have been made in good faith by the officers of the carrier with the representatives of ,System Federation No. 6 and which adopted rules of the contract are regarded as highly fundamentally sacred to the carrier's employes of the machinists' craft.
Furthermore, the carrier's action in farming out the repair of these fuel injection pumps constitutes:
It is manifest that all of the foregoing acts of the carrier are tantamount to abrogating, at its will, each 'and all of the above mentioned rules of the 1866-5 683
We find the Machinists' Classification of Work Rule 53 grants jurisdiction over the work involved in the present case to the machinists' craft, that the 1948 Memorandum of Understanding does not exempt such work from the coverage of Rule 53, and that the carrier therefore violated the agreement in this instance. The claim must therefore be sustained, except, however, with respect to the requested "minimum of not less than 24 hours to each" of the claimants. Claimants shall be compensated at pro rata hourly rates in the amount of the hours equal to those the Chicago Company paid to its employes for the performance of the work in question.