SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 130, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'
DEPARTMENT, A. F. of L. (Electrical Workers)
DISPUTE: CLAIM OF EMPLOYES: 1. That under the current agreement other than a Crane Operator was improperly assigned on March 10, 1954, to operate an overhead electric crane in connection with moving shop equipment.
compensate Crane Operator Floyd Evans in the amount of 5 hours' pay r the above mentioned violation.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: On March 10, 1954, from 12:00 midnight to 3:20 A. M. the carrier assigned Foreman I. D. Stocking to operate the overhead electric crane in connection with moving shop equipment at the Chicago Diesel repair shop.
Crane Operator Floyd Evans, hereinafter referred to as the claimant, is an hourly rated employe regularly employed as a crane operator in their Chicago Diesel repair shop on the 8:00 A. M. to 4:30 P. M. shift. The claimant was available and willing to perform the work in question if called or assigned.
The dispute was handled with carrier officials designated to handle such affairs, who all declined to adjust the matter.
The agreement effective September 8. 1950, as subsequently amended, is controlling.
POSITION OF EMPLOYES: It la submitted that under the provisions of Rule 81, "Classification of Work" reading:
The carrier does not agree with the statement made by the employes that "Foreman in charge assigned Foreman I. D. Stocking to move shop equipment with overhead crane". Foreman Stocking was the foreman in charge. He did not arbitrarily assign himself to the performance of the work which forms the basis of this claim, but he did perform it under the circumstances outlined in carrier's statement of facts in consideration and for benefit of his subordinate employe, who was on duty and under pay during the time this work was performed.
The carrier, in letter dated October 12, 1954, signed by the president and general manager, addressed to General Chairman McLennan, said:
Foreman Stocking operated the ten ton crane and removed the stop block from the rail, work that would have normally been performed by Electrician Clarke, ~ but as explained previously herein, Electrician Clarke, who was present and under pay, had hurt his arm and asked Mr. Stocking to do the work for him, which he agreed to do. It was not an act intended to deprive any employe of work that properly belonged to him, nor can it be considered as a violation of the rights of employes covered by agreement with the electrical workers which would justify the payment of the penalty compensation requested by the employes.
The principle in this case is similar to that covered by Awards Nos. 1081 and 1042 of the Second Division, also No. 1453 of the Third Division, N.R.A.B.
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 facts of record sustain the contention that the work in question is electrical workers' work, but under the circumstances existing in the instant case, the claim for pay is not justified.