EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: The New Orleans Public Belt Railroad Company, hereinafter referred to as the Carrier, maintains a force of carmen who are assigned to positions covering Carrier's operation twenty four (24) hours per day, seven (7) days per week, at a number of locations in the shops and yards at New Orleans, Louisiana.
Carrier's carmen employes are covered by one seniority roster as evidenced by Exhibit A attached. Carman W. J. Reuther, hereinafter referred to as the claimant, is listed on the seniority roster and was available and willing to perform the work subject to dispute.
For many years prior to October 5, 1959, carmen were assigned to the Engine House. On that date Carrier abolished the last of the carmen positions assigned at the Engine House and from that time to the present Carrier uses carmen assigned at other locations within the seniority point to perform the carmen's work at the Engine House. Carmen are employed around the clock two blocks from the Engine House.
On January 21, 1964, Machinist W. Latapie, assisted by Painter M. G. LeBlanc, were used to replace defective rear coupler in Engine No. 61. Claim was timely filed and properly handled with Officers of the Carrier up to and including the highest designated officer, all of whom have declined to adjust
In the instant case Carrier assigned a machinist and a painter to make repairs to back coupler on Engine No. 61, pursuant to the provisions of Article VII, Carrier's Proposal No. 23 of the National Agreement dated August 21, 1954, adopted on this property by Agreement dated September 12, 1955, which reads as follows:
Similar claims have been declined on this property and since they were not progressed, it must be assumed that Carrier's position was correct.
Attached are Exhibits A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, and I, which cover complete correspondence regarding this claim.
POSITION OF CARRIER: This claim is based on the use of employes, of other crafts to perform carmen's work at our Machine Shop. There is not sufficient work to justify employing a carman at Carrier's Machine Shop; therefore, Carrier assigned a painter and a machinist to perform the work in question. Painter M. G. LeBlanc, who assisted or performed this work, is classified in Rule 78 and belongs to the Carmen's Organization.
The Organization has admitted that the four hours' overtime claimed is only their estimate of time required to make the repairs. Even if this claim was valid, which Carrier does not concede, it should not be for payment at the overtime rate.
The fact that there is insufficient work to justfy employing a carman at. this point has not been disputed by the Organization.
Carrier takes the position that Article VII, Carrier's Proposal No. 23 of Agreement dated August 21, 1954, is controlling in this case and respectfully requests your Honorable Board to decline this claim.
All data contained herein has been furnished the Organization either in writing or in conference.
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
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
The claim is based on the use of the employes of other crafts to perform carmen's work at the Machine Shop. There was not sufficient work to justify employing a carman at Carrier's Machine Shop; therefore, Carrier assigned a painter, M. G. LeBlanc to do the work. There was no carman employed at this shop as there was insufficient work to be done.
The Organization is requesting four hours' overtime for Carman W. J. Reuther as their estimate of time required to make the repairs.
The Carrier properly assigned a painter to make repairs on a back coupler on Engine 61 pursuant to the Agreement, as there was not sufficient work to justify the employing of a mechanic of each craft to do the work. Painter, M. G. LeBlanc, who assisted or performed this work, belongs to the Carmen's Organization.
The second paragraph of the Employes' Statement of Facts ,reads as f ollows
On reading the Employes' Statement of Facts quoted above it will be noted that it was the carrier who denied that there was any such an agreement. In the findings of the majority quoted below they say it was the Organization that denied there was any such practice; that there was such an understanding.
"In denying this claim * * *, the initial officer denied that any such agreement had been made with the Organization as to the manner in which Carman would be worked on an overtime basis on the local hump and set forth the practice which had ,been followed * * *."
It will be noted from the quote above from the Carrier's Position that the initial officer denied there was any such agreement that had been made with the Organization. It will be noted from the quote below from the findings of the majority they say the Organization denied that there was such an agreement.
The twelfth paragraph of the Carrier's Statement of Facts reads as follows
It will be noted in the quote above from the Carrier's Statement of Facts they admitted the inspector worked 2 hours and 55 minutes beyond the close of second shift. It will .be noted in the quote below from the findings of the majority they say the inspector stayed on until 11:00 P. M., his quitting time and left; then state that the carrier did not violate the agreement by not assigning overtime work which was not needed.
The foregoing shows the discrepancies indulged in by the majority in arriving at their conclusions in Award 5196. We, the Labor Members, dissent.
The same confused and extravagant findings are used to deny Awards 5193; 5194, 5197, 5198, 5199 and 5200 and we therefore likewise dissent to