The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Gene T. Ritter when award was rendered.
SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 29, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'
DEPARTMENT, AFL-CIO (Carmen)
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Carmen J. A. Brumfield and J. M. Raborn, hereinafter referred to as the claimants, are employed as such on the repair track, 7:00 A. M. to 3:30 P. M. at Bogalusa, Louisiana by the Gulf, Mobile and Ohio Railroad Company, hereinafter referred to as the carrier. The claimants were off duty and available for service at the time the violation occurred.
Prior to October 6, 1968 the carrier employed two machinists at North Side Shop to repair and mtaintain the locomotives operating into that point. Effective October 6, 1968, these machinists' jobs were abolished and the machinists awarded separation pay.
Carmen from the shop forces on the repair track are sent to North Shop during the day shift when they are on duty to repair and maintain the locomotives. However, when the shop force is off duty, train yard men are sent to North Shop to perform the work. On October 7 and 9, 1968 Car Inspector H. M. Talley, who is assigned to the train yard 11:00 P. M. to 7:00 A. M., was sent to the North Shop and worked on locomotives from 11:00 P. IM. to 3:00 A. M. each night, for which claims are herein submitted. Each night subsequent to those dates, up to and including January 23, 1969, a train yard man was sent to the North Shop to work these locomotives. Continuous
The purpose in furnishing this information to the general chairman was to show tile trivial amount of work performed by carmen on locon.otives at Bogalusa-only two hours in a forty-one hour period. The other work performed on the locomotives was performed by a laborer.
(a) Rule 510 of the agreement makes a specific restriction that, train yardmen will not be required to work on cars "not locomotives." These cars must be taken from trains to repair track "not service tracks or train yards." This rule was in efect for some forty years before it was superseded.
(b) Rule 510 was superseded by Article VII of the agreement of August 21, 1954. The undisputed facts in this case are that "there is not sufficient work (at Bogalusa) to justify employing a mechanic of each craft . . . ." The only craft employed at Bogalusa are carmen. 'these carmen are qualified to perform any necessary work on locomotives at Bogalusa.
(c) There is no agreement, inference or past practice that carznen employed on the repair track at Bogalusa have the exclusive right to work on locomotives at that point.
(d) The carrier has not restricted its right by contract or past practice to have carmen employed in the train yard at Bogalusa perform work on diesel locomotives regardless of where the locomotive is located. The evidence submitted to the general chairman verified by the machinists' general chairman shows that in a test period of forty-one hours, carmen performed work on locomotives during the period 6:45 P. Ill., May 21, 1969, until 5:00 A. M., May 22, 1969, a total of only two hours during the period of forty-one hours.
(e) This claim is an efort, by board construction, to have the contract enlarged to give carmen employed on the repair track the exclusive right to do all work on diesel locomotives at Bogalusa.
(f) The claim is not supported by the contract, past practice or common reasoning and should be denied.
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, 193-1.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute inv,)lvea herein.
Carrier contends that the word "cars" in Rule 510 does not encompass "locomotives"; and that the term "repair tracks" does not encompass any other type track. Carrier also maintains that under the terms of Article VII of the August 21, 1954 National Agreement, a mechanic of one craft, under circumstances contained in this dispute, may perform work of a mechanic of another craft. Article VII is as follows:
This Board must resolve this dispute in favor of the Carrier. It is concluded that when a provision in a contract specifically refers to "cars," this Board is without authority to rewrite the contract by adding the words "and locomotives." Likewise, this Board is without authority to add additional type tracks to a specific provision designating "repair tracks." Therefore, Rule 510 does not prohibit Carrier's action in this dispute. Also, Article VII of the August 21, 1954 Agreement permits the act complained of herein. This Claim will be denied.