The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Harry Abrahams when award was rendered.
SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 99, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'
DEPARTMENT, AFL-CIO (Carmen)
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 carman 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, Machinists T. Miestchovich and R. R. Dambrino were used to replace defective front coupler in Burro Crane No. 3. 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 it.
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 two machinists to perform the work in question.
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 justify 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 request your Honorable Board to decline this 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.
In accordance with the agreement and the facts set forth in the record, the Carriers did employ a carpenter in its machine shop prior to October 5,
1959. This carpenter was carried on the carmen's seniority roster; and on October 5, 1959, the Carrier abolished this assignment as there was not sufficient work to employ a carpenter at this location.
No carman at the time involved was employed at this location to do the work. Therefore, the carpenter could do the work that was previously done by a carman when a carman was not present.
Accordingly, there was no violation of the Agreement nor of the facts as presented.
The claim of .the carmen is, therefore, denied, and W. J. Reuther is not entitled to be compensated for four hours at time and a half rate.
The second paragraph of the Employes' Statement of Facts reads as follows:
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.
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 these awards.