NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

SECOND DIVISION

The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in

addition Referee Joseph S. Kane when award was rendered.

SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 10, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'

DEPARTMENT, AFL-CIO (Machinists)

THE DENVER AND RIO GRANDE WESTERN

RAILROAD COMPANY

EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Machinist J. R. Miller, herein'ter referred to as the claimant, is employed as such by the Denver and Rio rande Western Railroad Company, hereinafter referred to as the Carrier.

On April 18, 1965 engine 3006 while operating at Dell, Colorado, broke its ae on the No. 2 power wheels and derailed. The Carrier's supervisor at Grand mction was notified and the Wrecking outfit was dispatched to the scene.

Upon arrival at the scene of the disabled engine the wrecking crew oundmen (Carmen) were instructed by the Supervisors to remove the side arings which permitted the removal of the entire Truck from the center sting and removal of the truck from beneath the engine.

The groundmen (Carmen) then proceeded as ordered to make temporary sirs. The truck binders were removed; the bolts holding the spring pack noved; the brake rigging on both sides of the truck including brake adjuster i brake shoes were removed; this then permitted the broken axle to be noved from the truck; the journal bearing boxes were removed from the iken axle and were installed on a spare pair of wheels which were brought h the wrecking outfit. The wheels were then placed in proper position in the

the railroad renders the public. Improvements in this service and economy in operating and maintenance expenses are promoted by willing cooperation between the railroad management and the voluntary organizations of its employes. When the groups responsible for better service and greater efficiency share fairly in the benefits which follow their joint efforts, improvements in the conduct and efficiency of the railroad are greatly encouraged. The parties to this agreement recognize the foregoing principles and agree to be governed by them in their relations."

For all the foregoing reasons the claim herein should be dismissed or denied.

All data in support of Carrier's position have been submitted to the Employes and made a part of the particular question in dispute. The Carrier reserves the right to answer any data not previously presented by the Employes.

Oral hearing is waived unless requested by the Employes, in which event Carrier wishes to be represented.

(Exhibits not reproduced.)

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.

Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.

The Claimant was a machinist and seeks compensation for eight (8) lours at the time and one-half rate of pay for failure to be called out on a wreck, where Carmen were used to perform the work of changing trucks on liesel locomotives, which work properly belonged to machinists.

The Claimants offered Rules 41 and 46 in support of their contentions.

"RULE 41.

* * * (b) In emergency cases, men of any class may be taken as members of the wrecking crews to perform duties consistent with their classification. Where engines are disabled, machinists and helpers, if necessary, shall accompany the wrecker and work under the direction of the wrecking foreman."

Rule 46 is a scope rule and describes the work of Machinists.

The claimant's position was that Engine 3006 was disabled and it was a

The Carrier offers in support of its contentions Rules 41 (b) and 41(c).

"RULE 41.

(b) In emergency cases, men of any class may be taken as members of the wrecking crews to perform duties consistent with their classification.

(c) When wrecking crews are called for wrecks or derailments outside of yard limits, the regularly assigned crew will accompany the outfit. * * * "

Furthermore, no trucks were changed on the diesel engine, but the traction motor and power wheel unit was replaced with idler wheels in order to move the engine. The original claim presented by the Local Chairman stated: " * * * No. 2 wheels were changed by other than machinist * ~` *." Thus a variance between the claim and the proof.

Rule 31 was violated as the claim was not presented on the property to the authorized carrier representative. The claim in fact was made by the local chairman to the Master Mechanic and the General Foreman, rather than the Division Locomotive Foreman. In addition, subsequent information and facts acquired by the claimants after a reinvestigation of the claim should have been presented within 60 days of the grievance and not as here presented approximately 10 months or more after the occurrence and several months after the carrier had declined the appeal.

The Board is of the opinion that the procedural defects in the claim make it impossible to determine the basic issue in the dispute: Whether the work performed was Machinist work under the rules? The original claim was that No. 2 wheels were changed. The claim before this Board was for changing trucks. The proof indicated more complete repairs were done at the scene of the wreck and no trucks were changed.

Rule 31 states:

"1 (a) All claims or grievances must be presented in writing by or on behalf of the employes, involved, to the officer of the Carrier authorized to receive the same, within 60 days from the date of the occurrence on which the claim or grievance is based."

This procedure was not followed and all the facts in the dispute were not before the parties at the initiation of the claim.

Thus the question of whether the work performed was done by others than machinist is not before the Board.

AWARD