The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Howard A. Johnson when award was rendered.
TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA,
A. F. of L.-C. I. O. (Railroad Division)
THE PITTSBURGH & LAKE ERIE RAILROAD COMPANY AND
THE LAKE ERIE AND EASTERN RAILROAD COMPANY
EMPLOYES STATEMENT OF FACTS: This case arose at McKees Rocks, Pa. and is known as Case M-24. McKees Rocks has a wreck crew as per agreement Rule 2 7. This wreck crew is required to be on stand-by notice twenty-four (24) hours a day to take care of wrecks or derailments on the property of the carrier.
The derailment occurred at Dickerson Run, Pa. and for the last twenty (20) years when wrecks or derailments occurred at this point and the derrick had to be used the McKees Rocks wreck crew took care of the work.
On the day in question the McKees Rocks wreck crew was not called to do the wrecking work but outside crews from the W&M and B&O Railroads were used.
The Railroad Division, Transport Workers Union of America, ALF-CIO does have a bargaining agreement, effective May 1, 1948 and revised March
The carrier has conclusively shown that the regularly assigned members of a wreck crew are required to be called for wrecking service only when the wrecker is called, and then in accordance with the provisions of Rule 27 of the carmen's agreement, and that it is a matter of discretion on the part of management whether the wreck train will be called to clear wrecks or derailments on its property.
In using wrecking equipment borrowed from other carriers who were closer to the scene of the derailment than the claimants in this case, the carrier followed a practice which has been in effect for any years, not only on this property, but on railroads throughout the country.
It is quite evident that the carmen's organization is attempting to gain through an award of this Division an interpretation of the agreement which is entirely unjustified and not supported by fact or reason. A sustaining award in favor of the employes in this case would have the effect of usurping the authority vested in the carrier to operate its plant in an efficient and economical manner.
Awards of the National Railroad Adjustment Board have been cited in support of the carrier's position.
The carrier respectfully submits that the claim is without merit and 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.
This Claim is essentially the same as those involved in Awards 1027, 1065, 1068, 1124 and 1176 of this Division and Award 1374 of the Fourth Division, and requires the same result.
In Award 3697 the majority relies wholly upon prior awards enumerated therein as justification for denying the claim.
The facts of record in this docket are at variance with the factual situation prevailing in the dockets leading to the awards cited by the majority in Award 3697.
The carrier in its presentation to this Board contended that the controlling agreement can be set aside by "the exercise of management's prerogative," the "discretion of management," or when considered "practical and expedient," "deemed necessary" or "practical and desirable."
As in prior awards cited no contention is made that an emergency existed that would in any sense preclude the use of employes covered by the agreement on this railroad.
The majority has in a casual manner failed to consider the agreement between the parties on this railroad. We dissent.