The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee D. Emmett Ferguson when the award was rendered.
SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 12, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'
DEPARTMENT, AFL-CIO (Carmen)
fact that it is not so separated but is tied to freight and passenger car inspecting clearly establishes that only air hose coupling performed in connection with freight and passenger car inspection is work which can be contended belongs exclusively to the carmen's craft or class. This Board is of course familiar with the fact that in interpreting the agreement here under consideration, specifically rule 124, it is necessary that that agreement be taken into consideration as written, which includes the punctuation marks as they appear in that section. The absence of a semicolon in the phrase here under consideration clearly establishes that in the rule air hose coupling must be tied to freight and passenger car inspection for it to come under the rule.
The carrier therefore submits that it is clearly established on this property through the previous handling of this identical question on three previous occasions that the claim as now submitted is not supportable under the controlling agreement. The carrier further submits that the previous decisions of this Board above referred to clearly establishes that the claim is not sustainable. The rule under consideration can be considered as sustaining the claim only in the event the reference to air hose coupling contained therein is isolated in the rule, which proper grammatical construction will not permit. The carrier therefore submits that the claim should be denied in its entirety.
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.
It has been stated by the organization that "the instant case is similar to that which was involved in Docket No. 2481" wherein a sustained award was made by this Division in a dispute between the present parties.
Examination reveals the similarity, but it also discloses a significant difference, in that this case involves Belle Plaine, Iowa, a point where the carrier has discontinued the use of carmen. Award 2628 (Docket 2481) turned on Rule 124 wherein "air hose coupling in train yards and terminals has been expressly given to carmen." That dispute arose "at the carrier's Clinton, Iowa, train yard (where) car inspectors are employed around the clock."
In this docket the Brotherhood rebuttal claims that Rule 29 has also been violated, which violation was not claimed originally nor in the basic submission to this Division. Mr. Cohan's letter of January 13, 1956 points out clearly the spread of hours during which trains departed from Belle Plaine, Iowa, but is completely silent on how long the trains were, how complicated the switching was, or which of the enumerated trains originated or were reworked while at Belle Plaine. No mention is made of an average two (2) hours' work in any shift. The carrier's reply is a general denial of the two (2) hours. In the absence of facts to which the rule may be applied 2717-9 25
(The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in addition
Referee D. Emmett Ferguson when the interpretation was rendered.)
INTERPRETATION NO. 1 TO AWARD NO. 2717
DOCKET NO. 2544
NAME OF ORGANIZATION: System Federation No. 12, Railway Employes' Department, AFL-CIO. (Carmen)
it is the purpose of the remand to establish the amount of mechanic's work (carman) and not just coupling of hose work?
Under the first paragraph of claim of the original employes' submission it is asserted that "the carrier improperly transferred the work of coupling air hose at Belle Plaine, Iowa." This is followed by a request that "carrier be ordered to: (a) restore such work to carmen and (b) compensate furloughed Carman Slock."
The claim was progressed to a result in Award No. 2717, wherein we found that this Division was without knowledge, of "the spread of hours during which trains departed . . . how long the trains were . . . how complicated the switching was . . . which . . . trains originated or were reworked . . . (and) an average two (2) hours' work in any shift"
Now the parties are in dispute as to how to conduct a joint check, "of the amount of time consumed in actual work of the mechanic (carman)." The carrier proposes in point 3 of the Memorandum that "the joint check shall cover only the time consumed in actually coupling hose, i.e., from the time going in between two cars for that purpose until return from between the cars, on a cumulative basis." The organization's response to the Memorandum proposal accepted points 1, 2, and 4, as phrased by the carrier, but as to point 3 insisted that "the joint check shall cover the time consumed coupling hose, starting at one end of train and ending at the other end of the train or cut of cars, and time consumed performing other carman mechanic's work at the respective point."
The organization's proposal is more realistic, and if followed in good faith and fair dealing will aid in establishing whether there is "an average two (2) hours' work in any shift . . . consumed in actual work of the mechanic (carman)."
The claim is again remanded to the parties for further progression on the property in keeping with our original findings as herein elaborated by interpretation.
Referee D. Emmett Ferguson who sat with the Division as a member, when Award No. 2717 was adopted also participated with the Division in making this interpretation.