Award No. 1989
Docket No. 1862
2-NONE-EW-'55
NATIONAL RAILROAD AD3USTMENT BOARD
SECOND DIVISION
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee David R. Douglass when the award was rendered.
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 21, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'
DEPARTMENT, A. F. of L.-(Electrical W6rkers)
NEW ORLEANS AND NORTHEASTERN RAILROAD COMPANY
DISPUTE: CLAIM OF EMPLOYES:
1. That under the current
agreement the Carrier improperly assigned other than its Electrical Workers
to perform electrical inspection, adjustment and to make the necessary electrica, repairs on Diesel-electric locomotives Nos. 6501 and 2230 at Laurel,
Mississippi, on February 8, 1953, and subsequent dates.
2. That accordingly the Carrier be ordered to:
a) To discontinue using other than its Electrical Workers
to perform this work at Laurel, Mississippi.
b) Additionally compensate Electrician Leon Schlager for
nine (9)
hours at the overtime rate in effect for Electricians on February 8, 1953, and for subsequent dates on
which like claims were made and filed with the Carrier.
c) Additionally compensate Electrician C. R. Tucker for nine
,(9) hours at the overtime rate in effect on March 8,
1953, and for subsequent like claims.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On February 8, 1953, Foreman A. L. Adams stationed at Hattiesburg, Mississippi, was sent by the carrier
to Laurel, Mississippi, a distance of 28.9 miles, for the purpose of inspecting
and making necessary repairs to diesel-electric locomotive No. 6501 and
again on March 8, 1953; likewise he or his successors have been sent to
this point from Hattiesburg to perform inspections, and adjustments and
repairs on the electrical equipment on this and other locomotives at this point
on all subsequent dates that it has been necessary to ct, adjust and make
repairs on the locomotive stationed here. No me=cs or foremen are
employed at Laurel, Mississippi.
Electricians Leon Schlager and C. R. Tucker, hereinafter referred to as
the claimants, both hold seniority as electricians at Meridian, Mississippi,
the closest shop point to Laurel, Mississippi, at which electricians are em-
L7091
1989-8
716
rules, has ample justification for making a denial award for this one reason
if for no other.
CONCLUSION
Carrier respectfully submits that:
(a) Carrier has not agreed to restrict itself to the extent of
conf errin
w,rl! upon electricians monopolistic rights to performance of
the of making the monthly locomotive unit inspection and
repair work of diesel-electric locomotives assigned at Laurel, Missis
sippi.
(b) Rule 31 of the effective agreement provides in clear
and unambiguous language that other than mechanics or apprentices
may perf orin mechanics' work at small points where minor or
emergency jobs are required. Laurel is such a point.
(c) Rule 3 1 of the effective agreement spells out that carrier
may require foremen to perform mechanics' work at points where
no mechanics are employed. Laurel is such a point. No electricians
have ever been empoyed there.
(d) Rule 31 recognizes that foremen and assistant foremen
may perform mechanics' work at points where they are in charge
of small forces and their time is not fully occupied in performing
supervisory duties. Laurel is such a point. The foreman is in
charge of a small f orce at that point (one carman and a relief
carman who works at Laurel and Hattiesburg) and his time is not
fully occupied in supervisory duties.
(e) The work of making the monthly locomotive unit inspection and repair report of diesel-electric locomotive units at Laurel
is not "properly" recognized as electricians' work within the meaning of the agreement.
(f ) Claim is nothing. more than an effort by the Brotherhood
to obtain a new rule by Board award.
(g) The Brotherhood recognizes that when foremen make
the monthly locomotive unit inspection and repair report of dieselelectric locomotives at Hattiesburg and other points, there is no
violation of the agreement.
(h) Claim being without merit and unsupported by the
effective agreement 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.
The parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.
This claim is before the Division because a Mechanical Department
Foreman was used to make the monthly inspection of the diesel-electric
locomotive at Laurel, Mississippi.
The Foreman, who performed the work in question, was employed at
both Laurel, Mississippi and Hattiesburg, Mississippi. He was stationed at
Hattiesburg, Mississippi.
1989-9
717
No electrical workers were employed at Laurel.
In our opinion, Rule 31 is the controlling rule of the effective agreement. Rule 31 is a general rule, insofar as it is intended to cover all the
special crafts which, as a group, are referred to as "mechanics." In applying
the rule to electrical workers, with which the instant case is concerned, we
must conclude that the last paragraph of Rule 31 exempts a foreman under
the facts of this case.
AWARD
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
ATTEST: Harry J. Sassaman
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 6th day of October, 1955.