NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

SECOND DIVISION

The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in

addition Referee Francis B. Murphy when award was rendered.

SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 96, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'

DEPARTMENT, AFL-CIO (Carmen)

LEHIGH VALLEY RAILROAD COMPANY

That the Carrier violated the current agreement when it improperly assigned Trainmen on September 7, 1965 to perform the work of Carmen in making inspection, air test, and the related coupling of air hoses on train of fifteen (15) cars in Biery Yard, Catasauqua, Pa.

That accordingly the Carrier be ordered to compensate Carman Marvin Ritter in the amount of two hours and forty minutes at the punitive rate of pay for September 7, 1965.

EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Carman Marvin Ritter, hereinafter referred to as the claimant, is regularly assigned to car inspector position, was off duty at the time. He was available to be called for this work on September 7, 1965, but was not called.

On September 7, 1965 a train of fifteen (15) cars drawn by the Pullout was dispatched from Biery Yard, which is the departure yard at Catasauqua, Pa.

The one carman on duty at the time (3:00 P. M to. 11:00 P. M. shift) was assigned to inspect cars at Cementon, Pa., which is in his seniority territory, and Yardmaster assigned Trainmen to couple air hoses, make the proper air test and inspection thereto to these fifteen (15) cars, as provided for in the Power Brake Law, and after this work was completed train left departure yard at approximately 10:10 P. M.

This dispute has been handled with all officers of the Carrier designated to handle such disputes, including Carrier's highest designated officer, all of whom have declined to make satisfactory adjustment.

The Agreement effective September 1, 1949, as subsequently amended, is controlling.

1. There is no rule in the Carmen's agreement giving that class of employes the exclusive right to couple air hose and/or test air brakes.

2. The issue of trainmen coupling air hose and testing air brakes has been taken to this Board on previous occasions, the claims were denied and the carriers involved were upheld in the same principle herein involved.

3. The employes have failed to produce any rule or evidence to substantiate its position in this case.

4. The work herein complained of has never been assigned exclusively to any particular class of employes on this property.

Awards of the National Railroad Adjustment Board have been cited by the carrier in support of its position.

Carrier respectfully submits this claim is without merit and should be denied.

(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 ra 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 issue raised in this dispute is similar to the issues disposed of by Awards 5192, 5439, 5462, 5463 and 5464 rendered by this Division subsequent

to the effective date of Article V of the Agreement of September 20, 1961 which is relied upon by petitioner in this dispute. It would be unwise to disturb the precedent established by these well reasoned decisions.

AWARD