The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Richard F. Mitchell when award was rendered.
RAILROAD DIVISION, TRANSPORT WORKERS
UNION OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO
THE PITTSBURGH & LAKE ERIE RAILROAD COMPANY AND
THE LAKE ERIE & EASTERN RAILROAD COMPANY
DISPUTE: CLAIM OF EMPLOYES: In the "Y" Yard at McKees Rocks, Pa. the carrier is upgrading box cars on the position system. The foreman has refused to advertise these jobs. This is a violation of agreement Rule 39, paragraph (a). The organization requests the carrier to abide by the agreement and advertise the box car positions in the "Y" Yard.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: This case arose at McKees Rocks, Pa. and is known as Case M-251.
Rule 39, paragraph (a) is being violated when the carrier refuses to advertise positions when classified or position work is being used at the "Y" Yard in McKees Rocks, Pa.
The carrier in the past has always advertised position work when a new order of cars are brought into the shop for repairs.
The Railroad Division, Transport Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO does have a bargaining agreement effective May 1, 1948 and revised March 1, 1956 with the Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Railroad Company and the Lake Erie & Eastern Railroad Company covering the carmen, their helpers and apprentices (Car & Locomotive Departments), copy of which is on file with the Board and is by reference hereto made a part of these statement of facts.
POSITION OF EMPLOYES: The carrier and the organization did enter into an agreement that allows the carrier to use classified or position system at any point where the work can be performed satisfactorily. This rule reads as f ollows:
The carrier also directs the attention of the Board to the following excerpts from First Division Awards 12023 and 13331:
In the instant case, the upgrading of box cars was discontinued by the carrier in November 1959. Notice of intention of the organization to file an ex parte submission in connection with this claim was given to the Board under date of April 22, 1960. Therefore, the claim was moot before the jurisdiction of the Board was invoked.
The carrier has shown that the work complained of in this case was no different than other light or running repair work performed daily by carmen in the "Y" Shop. Further, that when new jobs were established, a bulletin was issued advertising for ten additional freight car repairmen to work on any and all light car repair work. Consequently, there was no violation of the advertisement rule of the agreement, as contended by the organization.
The carrier has also shown that the upgrading work at "Y" Shop was discontinued prior to the time the organization invoked the services of this Board and that the question has now become moot. Awards of the National Railroad Adjustment Board have been cited in support of carrier's position.
The carrier, therefore, respectfully submits that the request of the employes be dismissed.
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.
In the "Y" Yard at McKees Rocks, Pa., the Carrier is upgrading box cars on the position system. The foreman refused to advertise these jobs.
It is the claim of the carrier that the question raised by the organization is now moot as far as this case is concerned. 3742-9 1 65S
The question may be moot as to this case, but the agreement covers claims of this kind, and so that carrier and the organization will know how to handle the same type of case in the future, we feel it necessary to render a decision.
Rule 39, paragraph "A" was violated by the carrier when it refused to advertise jobs for upgrading box cars at the "Y" Yard in McKees Rocks, Pa.
This was acknowledged by the Carrier, when it advertised in the past, when a new order of cars was brought into the shop. See Employes Exhibits No. 1 and No. 2.
The position of the organization is sustained, and the Carrier is required to advertise the jobs as asked for by the Employes.
It is apparent the majority have bottomed their award on one isolated case wherein a bulletin was posted, concerning which the carrier stated, without dispute by the organization, that "a complete check of Bulletins for the past ten years failed to find any other similar advertisement involving work at the "Y" Shop so that the carrier continues to deny that in the past such specific work has always been advertised at that location, and precedent cannot be established on the basis of one isolated advertisement."
The work performed under bulletin dated January 24, 1958 (Employes' Exhibit No. 1) involved box cars and required the application of veneer floors, plywood lining, threshold plates and other miscellaneous repairs and end straightening, whereas in the cars involved in the instant claim no such repairs were required and in most cases involved only patch work on the floors and sidings as required.