Award No. 3248
Docket No. 2981
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
SECOND DIVISION
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Roscoe G. Hornbeck when award was rendered.
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 21, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'
DEPARTMENT, A. F. of L.-C. I. O. (Carmen)
SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY
DISPUTE: CLAIM OF EMPLOYES:
1. That under the current Agreement, the Carrier on September 5, 1957, improperly assigned Stores Department employes at
Hayne Car Shop, Spartanburg, South Carolina, to handle and transport material (masking paper) from point of storage to racks in
paint shop.
2. That accordingly the Carrier be ordered to additionally
compensate Carman E. W. Lindsey for five (5) hours at pro rata rate
for violation of Agreement on September 5, 195 7.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Carman E. W. Lindsey, hereinafter referred to as the claimant, is regularly employed as such by the
Southern Railway Company, hereinafter referred to as the carrier, at the
carrier's Hayne Car Shop, Spartanburg, South Carolina. The claimant is
regularly assigned Monday through Friday, 7:30 A. M. to 4:00 P. M., rest days
Saturday and Sunday, in charge of and as driver of the material truck at
Hayne Car Shop hauling material from the storehouse or other points of storage to the car department (including the paint shop and coach shop) and
placing the material needed immediately in or near cars undergoing repairs.
If the material is not needed immediately, claimant places the material in bins
and racks in and about the shop.
On September 5, 1957, the carrier assigned stores' department employes
to transport material (masking paper) from the point of storage (stores department) to the material storage rack located in the car department paint
shop.
Prior to the instant case employes of the carman's craft have performed
the work of securing material from the stores department and delivering or
[3237
3248-13
It is evident, therefore, that the claim here presented cannot be sustained
unless the Board disregards the evidence presented, and the agreement between
the parties and practices thereunder, and attempts to impose upon the carrier
conditions of employment and obligations with respect thereto not agreed upon
between the parties by following the processes of collective bargaining. The
Board has heretofore held that it would not take such action. For example,
in Third Division Award No. 6007, Referee Messmore, it was held:
"In determining the rights of the parties it is our duty to interpret the applicable rules of the parties' agreement as they are written. It is not our privilege or right to add thereto. See Award
4435."
In Third Division Award No. 6828, Referee Messmore, it was held:
"The authority of this Division is limited to interpreting and
applying the rules agreed upon by the parties.
" `The burden of establishing facts sufficient to require or permit the allowance of a claim is upon him who seeks its allowance.'
See Awards 3523, 6018, 5040, 5976."
The Board, having heretofore recognized the limitations placed upon it by
law and the fact that it is without authority to grant new rules or modify
existing rules, such as here demanded by the brotherhood, and will not, therefore, attempt to further restrict carrier's rights, can make a denial award for
this one reason, if for no other, and there are others.
CONCLUSION
Carrier has shown that:
(a) As a prerequisite to the exercise of the statutory power
conferred upon it by the Railway Labor Act, the Board has to give
due notice to employes of the clerical class or craft of all hearings in
connection with the instant dispute and afford them an opportunity
to be heard before taking jurisdiction of or passing upon the merits
of the claim here presented.
(b) The effective agreement has been complied with and the
claim which the brotherhood here attempts to assert is without any
basis. In fact, it is absurd. The involved work was properly
assigned.
(c) Submission of the claim to the Board constitutes nothing
more than an effort by the brotherhood to establish new rules and
working conditions by a Board decision, rather than by following the
processes of collective bargaining. That the Board has no authority
to grant the request and demand here made has heretofore been
recognized by it.
If, after due notice has been given employes of the clerical class or craft
and they have been given the opportunity of being heard, claim is considered
on the merits, the Board cannot do other than make a denial award.
FINDINGS: The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the
whole record and all the evidence, finds that:
3248-14
336
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.
Employes have not proven their claim No. 1, that the carrier assigned
Stores Department employes, at the time and place set out, to transport material (masked paper)
from
point of storage
to
paint shop.
For interpretation of controlling Rule 151 of the agreement and the letter
of agreement, October 9, 1939, see Award No. 3246 (Docket No. 2979).
AWARD
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of SECOND DIVISION
ATTEST: Harry J. Sassaman
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 23rd day of June 1959.