The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee D. Emmett Ferguson when award was rendered.
TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA
RAILROAD DIVISION
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: That on July 3, 5, 9, 1957, G. Holfelder an apprentice was used to replace a helper on the shear at KS Shop.
That helpers have always been assigned to work with the mechanics on the shear machine.
That these jobs have been advertised and awarded to helpers. Employes' Exhibits No. 1, 2 and 3.
That an apprentice agreement was negotiated with the carrier and nowhere in this agreement does it give the carrier the right to replace a helper with an apprentice.
That this case was processed on the property of the carrier and is known as Case M-156.
Punch and Shear Operator Helper J. V. Lemic was employed at the shear on the dates here involved and performed his work as defined in Rule 26 of the present carmen's agreement, which provides in part:
On the dates of the instant claim, Claimants Cencic and Bobchok were furloughed. Both men were recalled in the fall of 1957, but only Mr. Bobchok returned to work. These men contended that a helper was displaced by an apprentice. In the apprentice agreement of January 18, 1956, there is nothing that prohibits an apprentice from displacing a helper. They are prohibited from displacing a mechanic.
Regardless of the rules, the claimants were furloughed due to a reduc tion in force and there was a helper (J. V. Lemic) employed and used on the shear on July 3, 5 and 9, 1957.
Carrier has shown conclusively that Apprentice Holfelder was used to help on the shear as a part of his apprentice training and the organization has failed to show a violation of the "Apprentice Agreement" and has failed to present any evidence in support of the validity of the claim.
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.
This dispute, once remanded in Award No. 3221, to the parties for settlement attempt was returned for decision.
Our award entered the 25th day of May, 1959 remanded this docket "for a joint check by the parties on the property as to the nature and extent of any displacement". Since the award the parties have conferred but have not developed any further proof as to the nature and extent of any displacement. In the absence of such proof, the division is in no better position to decide than it was originally and the claim is necessarily dismissed. 3345-9 2K