The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Mortimer Stone when the award was rendered.
RAILROAD DIVISION, TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION
OF AMERICA, A. F. of L: C. I. O.
THE PITTSBURGH & LAKE ERIE RAILROAD COMPANY
AND THE LAKE ERIE & EASTERN RAILROAD COMPANY
DISPUTE: CLAIM OF EMPLOYES: At McKees Rocks Y Shop there is a seven day agreement. This means men at this location work seven days a week. Some men work Monday through Friday and other men hold assignments that work Saturday and Sunday.
Some time ago the wreck-crew jobs had been abolished but now have been re-activated. When this was done these wreck-crew men were put on the Monday through Friday jobs.
Now when the furlough came along this meant a change at McKees Rocks "Y" Shop. The wreck-crew men are still being kept on the Monday through Friday jobs while older men are required to work the Saturday and Sunday jobs.
This is a violation of the present agreement Rule 40, paragraph (f) as the older men should be allowed to bump the Monday through Friday jobs.
EMPLOY ES STATEMENT OF FACTS: This case arose at McKees Rocks, Pa., and is known as Case M-207.
The organization and carrier have an agreement for the "Y" Yard establishing seven ( r ) day assignments for this point. Not all the jobs at this point are seven (7) day assignments.
Sometime ago the carrier had abolished all wreck-crew jobs but now has re-activated these jobs. When these jobs were re-activated the wreck-crew men were put on jobs that worked Monday through Friday but these jobs were not the ones involved in the seven (7) day assignments.
Along carne a furlough and the carrier insisted that these wreck-crew men were going to work the Monday through Friday assignments regardless of their seniority. This meant that senior employes that were either being
Carrier has shown that the senior carmen discussed in this case desired to exercise seniority rights and displace junior carmen, in their seniority district, from their Monday through Friday carmen assignments, which were also wreck crew assignments. These senior carmen, however, were unwilling to accept the wreck crew responsibilities which accompanied these positions and under such circumstances the carrier would not consent to this displacement. The carrier has also shown that employes bidding for or displacing on any assignment have always been and still are require dto accept all of the conditions which accompany that assignment. It is carrier's prerogative to determine job requirements and no employes, senior or junior, can choose only the desirable portions of those requirements and contend for an assignment on that basis. It is all or nothing and the burden of proving the present contention rests with the employes.
Awards of the Third Division, National Railroad Adjustment Board, have been cited in support of carrier's position.
The carrier respectfully submits that the request of the organization 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.
True, as asserted by carrier, there is nothing in that provision which permits the senior employe to pick and choose only the desirable portions of a junior employe's assignment and he must take all the conditions of the job he displaces. But the fact, if true, that the senior carmen who had been furloughed "did not want to assume all the conditions of work performed by junior employes", as asserted by carrier, is not ground for denying them the right to bid in the advertised positions to which their seniority entitled them. If such "conditions of work performed by junior employes" properly attached to 3780-s 365