Award No. 3103
Docket No. 2996
2-CRI&P-F&O-'59
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
SECOND DIVISION
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee D. Emmett Ferguson when award was rendered.
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 6, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'
DEPARTMENT, A. F. of L.-C. I. O. (Firemen and Oilers)
CHICAGO ROCK ISLAND AND PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY
DISPUTE: CLAIM OF EMPLOYES:
1. That under the current agreement Stationary Engineer
Chas. DeMeyer, employed as such for more than 28 years in Carrier's
Power Plant at Silvis, Illinois, was deprived of his seniority and service rights, when effective with April 23, 1957, the Carrier arbitrarily
abolished his regular assignment of regular relief Engineer with
assigned work week of Sunday and Monday 7 . M. to 3 P. M., Tuesday and Wednesday 3 P. M. to 11 P. M. and Thursday 11 P. M. to 7
A. M., Friday and Saturday rest days, and readvertised it with Sunday and Monday 7 A. M. to 3 P. M., Tuesday 3 P. M. to 11 P. M.
and Wednesday and Thursday 11 P. M. to 7 A. M.-rest days Friday and Saturday. Thereby substituting the 11 P. M. to 7 A. M.
shift for the regular 3 P. M. to 11 P. M. shift each Wednesday resulting in a reduction of pay for the regular relief Engineer in his
assignment of regular relief engineer and causing him to exercise
his seniority at a further loss of wages on another position.
2. That accordingly the Carrier be ordered to restore the regular Relief Engineer's position with its original shift assignments of
Sunday and Monday 7 A. M. to 3 P. M., Tuesday and Wednesday
3 P. M. to 11 P. M., Thursday 11 P. M. to 7 A. M.-rest days of
Friday and Saturday, and to compensate Stationary Engineer
DeMeyer for all monetary losses incurred by him as the result of
the abolishment of said position effective April 23, 1957.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Immediately prior to September 1, 1949, the carrier maintained 3 assignments of stationary engineers,
one on each shift 7 days per week in their Silvis Power Plant.
Effective with Sept. 1, 1949, and in accordance with Paragraph a of
Rule 1, these three 7-day assignments were reduced to
five days per week with
the following assigned work weeks and rest days.
f167
3103-8
23
The seniority rules were not violated in the instant case-a position with
new alignment of shifts was established and the successful bidder desiring it
was assigned thereto. The claimant also had opportunity to bid for the
position.
The employes admit that the carrier has a right to establish relief position
in following statement in their letter of April 25, 1957:
"The employes do not question the carriers authority or prerogative to establish a relief job to fill this one rest day on the 3rd shift
engineers position each Wed. and use such an occupant to relieve
employes in other classes on other days or fill out his work week as
a laborer."
The employes rely on Memo. 6 of agreement of August 1, 1955 (reprinted) but we submit they can show no violation thereof. There is nothing in
the agreement prohibiting changing a relief set-up of the days or shifts contemplated in the five-day cycle. Their main complaint without proof is that
the change had the effect of "causing him personal inconvenience great mental anguish and physical distress, interferring with his established social life,
etc." Of course, these are not covered by the agreement and no where
in this case can the employes show the claimant was deprived of his seniority
or employment. His seniority, which was not, of course, taken from him,
controls the position to which entitled, and the employes under the circumstances, are unable to make a case for monetary loss in connection therewith.
Under the facts in this case, we respectfully request declination of the
claim as without merit.
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.
Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.
The change effected by the abolishment and rebulletining of the claimant's job was only as to one day of his work week. Under the new schedule
he worked on all the same tricks as theretofore except the Wednesday 3-11
turn which was changed to Wednesday 11-7. The question is whether or not
this action violated the rules.
The organization contends that Memo. 6 and the seniority and service
rights of the claimant were violated. The carrier urges that the provisions of
Rule 2(e) "Regular Relief Assignments", particularly the phrase, "Assignments for regular relief positions may on different days include different starting times", grants carrier the right to establish or reestablish schedules such
as in the present case.
We find no violation of Memo. 6 and although the net result of the present
change affected the claimant's earnings, we find that the authority for the
carrier's action is spelled out in Rule 2(e).
3103-9
24
AWARD
The claim is denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of SECOND DIVISION
ATTEST: Harry J. Sassaman
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 9th day of February, 1959.
DISSENT OF LABOR MEMBERS TO AWARD NO. 3103
The majority in denying this claim ignores the seniority and service
rights of the claimant as established pursuant to the controlling agreement.
The establishment of regular relief positions under the 40-Hour Week
Agreement did not reduce, restrict or change in any manner the protective
provisions of the Seniority Rules as provided in the Agreement; however,
this Award upholds the carrier in its arbitrary invasion of the current seniority
and service rights as guaranteed by the Agreement.
James B. Zink
R. W. Blake
Charles E. Goodlin
T. E. Losey
Edward W. Wiesner