SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 2, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'
DEPARTMENT, AFL-CIO (Carmen)
1. That the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company violated the Controlling Agreement, particularly Rules 26 and 52, and Letter of Understanding of May 1, 1940, when they arbitrarily transferred work belonging to the Machinists' Craft to the Electricians' Craft beginning January 7, 1965, Little Rock, Arkansas.
2. That accordingly, the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company be ordered to compensate the following Machinists in the amount of four (4) hours each at the punitive rate on the dates appearing next to their names account they were available and should have been called to perform this work:
January 7, 1965 January 8, 1965 January 9, 1965 January 10, 1965 January 11, 1965 January 12, 1965 January 13, 1965 January 14, 1965 January 15, 1965 January 16, 1965 January 17, 1965 January 18, 1965 January 19, 1965 January 20, 1965 January 21, 1965 January 22, 1965 January 23, 1965 January 24, 1965 January 25, 1965 January 26, 1965
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: The Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, hereinafter referred to as the Carrier, maintained a force of machinists at the Union Depot, Little Rock, Arkansas for many years. They also maintain a force of machinists at the North Little Rock Diesel Shop which is located just across the river from the Little Rock Union Depot (approximately one-half mile distant), and machinists have been assigned by bulletin at the Little Rock Union Depot to perform machinists' work, a fact substantiated by Employes' Exhibit A-1 through A-6, attached, which are copies of bulletins assigning machinists to perform work at the Union Depot. However, beginning January 7, 1965, the Carrier assigned an electrician to perform machinists' work on diesel units Nos. 12, 22, 335 and 333 at the Union Depot in Little Rock, although approximately 229 machinists (3 shifts) are employed just across the river in the North Little Rock Diesel Shop and who not only hold contract to perform this work, but were available had they been called to perform this work, i.e., making the proper mechanical inspection test on engine automatic brake valves including safety feature, checking of brake cylinder pressure, adjustment of brake travel when needed due to excess shoe wear, inspecting of main air reservoir safety appliance, check of wheels for defects such as shell out spots, cracked wheels, high flanges and flat spots, Diesel engine rocker assemblies, air boxes for water leaks and broken rings and the crank case for excess smoke and overheated bearings and other mechanical defects pertaining to the diesel engine.
The Employes refer your Honorable Board's attention to the Employes' Claim outlined previously listing twenty (20) Machinists, hereinafter referred to as the Claimants, who were available on the dates appearing next to their names if they had been called.
This work is contracted exclusively to the Machinists' Craft, and when the Carrier arbitrarily assigned this work to other than Machinists, they deprived the Claimants of their contractual rights, which is a violation of the Controlling Agreement, and constitutes the basis of the claim.
This matter has been handled up to and including the highest designated officer of the Carrier, who has declined to adjust it.
POSITION OF EMPLOYES: About late 1950 the employes at Little Rock, Arkansas, requested consolidation of the forces at North Little Rock and Union Depot, Little Rock, Arkansas, and following negotiation an agreement was signed at St. Louis, Missouri on August 12, 1952, consolidating the seniority rosters of mechanics, "B" mechanics, apprentices and helpers of the crafts of Machinists, Boilermakers, Sheet Metal Workers, Electrical Workers and Carmen, and the Employes herewith direct your Honorable Board's attention to Employes' Exhibit B, which is a copy of former Chief Personnel Officer, Mr. T. Short's letter of August 13, 1952, and Employes' Exhibit B-1, which is a copy of Agreement of August 12, 1952, consolidating these facilities, and it will be noted Item 7 of this agreement reads:
Although the Carrier has not digressed from its stated policy in this case, we again emphasize that the letter of May, 1940 is not a letter of agreement, and cannot afford the basis for a time claim.
The decline in passenger business and the subsequent elimination of passenger trains has made reductions and reassignment of forces necessaryThe Employes by filing this claim reveal the normal reluctance to accept the necessary changes. Here the force at the Little Rock Union Depot had been, reduced to the point where machinists were not employed at the Depot at the time the electrician made the Federal Inspection of the diesel units on. Train No. 7 at the Depot.
The inspection required by law may be made by any qualified employesThis work has not been contracted to machinists exclusively. For this reason, the claim must be denied. Furthermore, as pointed out above, the mechanics on duty at the Depot, including the electrician, could perform the work of the machinists' craft on dates of claim since no machinists were employed at the Depot at the times the inspections were made. Rule 26, which the Employes cite, requires a denial of the claim.
All matters contained herein have been the subject matter of correspondence and/or 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 Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
Third party notice was served upon the President of the International' Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, in accordance with the Railway Labor Act as amended, and the Rules of this Board. The United States Post Office Department has certified that the letter was received by the addressee.
Carrier did not deny the claim on the property because the Employes failed to file said claims within the time limits provided for in Rule 31 of the Agreement. The rights under said Rule 31 are procedural, and not jurisdictional. When not asserted on the property such rights are waived. The factual issue is properly before this Board for determination.
On July 24, 1964, Carrier abolished machinists' positions at the Little Rock Union Depot. Electricians on the first shift, who were retained to maintain the air conditioning and other electrical equipment, made the inspection of the diesel locomotive on Train No. 7 and signed the report required by
,the Interstate Commerce Commission. This claim, filed on January 7, 1965, alleges that the Carrier arbitrarily transferred work belonging to the Machinists' Craft to the Electricians' Craft. Electricians continued to inspect the diesel locomotive on Train No. 7 until July 9, 1965, when the Carrier established a combination job which made the machinist who inspected the switch engines in the Little Rock Yard also responsible for the inspection of the diesel engine on passenger Train No. 7.
Carrier alleges, and there is no convincing evidence to the contrary, that the electricians made only normal inspection required by the Interstate Commerce Commission. Employes have failed to establish by a preponderance of evidence that mechanical work reserved to machinists, other than inspection, was performed during the period involved in this claim.
Rule 52 (a) provides that machinists' work shall include, among other things, "engine inspecting." But, inspecting of engines is not the work alone of machinists. Locomotive engineers, electricians, and employes of other crafts inspect engines to meet ICC requirements.
Similarly, Rule 26 is not inconsistent with this established practice. Rule 26(a) says:
There is no probative evidence in the record that repairs or mechanical adjustments reserved to machinists were made during the period of this claim. The allegation that "beginning January 7, 1965, the Carrier assigned an electrician to perform machinists' work * * * " is a mere assertion and conclusion. It does not give the dates when the alleged work was done, what machinist work, other than ICC inspection, was actually performed by electricians, nor what specific repairs or adjustments were made.
On the basis of the record, we are obliged to conclude that there is no merit to the claim.