r

(Advance copy. The usual printed copies will be sent later.)

Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 6405
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 6241
2-URR-USWA-172
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Irving T. Bergman when award was rendered.

( United Steelworkers of America
( Local 1913
Parties to Dispute:
(
( The Union Railroad Company

Dispute: Claim of Employes:

This dispute represents a protest from grievant Mike Orosz, who is an incumbent to the Blacksmith position, (Local Title) or Car Parts Fabricator, (standard job description title), that on December 10, 1971. Management improperly abolished the aforementioned position.

In initiating this action under Rule 17, Management misused and distorted the clear intent of Rule 17.

A grievance locally designated as Case CD-16 was properly filed on the instant case and reads as follows:

"I Mike Orosz claim that the Company violated the contract, under job descriptions. My job as Blacksmith was abolished on December 10, 1971. Since then the Company had Punch Press, and Shear opexatorp Mr. SaIsgiver and layerout Mr. Shotwell doing the work that I have done in the past. I have checked with these men every day and they tell m-- that they were ordered to do that work. Such as straightening ' cutting I.evers, bottom conn., brake rods, and so forth. These men claim that they have never. done that work before. I feel that this is an unfair labor practice. I request that the Company pay me Blacksmith wages for every day that my job was abolished.

Hearing requested as per Rule 25."

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.
Foam 1 Page 2

Award No. 6405
Docket No. 6241
2-ITRR-USWA-' 72

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

The clam was filed by an employe who did blacksmith work. It alleges that the position of blacksmith eras improperly abolished under Rule 17 of the Arrreemsnt. This is based on the farther allegation that the black-smith's work - is being done in the car department: by the punch press-shear position and the 1r.yAxout position.

It 3.s clear that, the Organization has not made out a case that Pule 17, Reduction of Forces, was not followed properly. The violation, if any,is cls.:imed to be the fact" t.l;a; the position was improperly abolished because the c%"'?° work. previrnas7~jr ne-7"ormed by the blacksmit,h is being done by C2y

Parts Fabricators otMer W,,an the blacksmith, at a lower rave . .. .

The Carrier maintains that, with the completion of a caboose building

prorr:?~, `8. force of . 7.0 i emo7.rsres in the car shop including the blacksmith 170.3
reG·?c~::,. to 90 employed. J~s~. work yTas be?.rig clone in the Car :hop are;?, and
par',^.~,~.'~.r. ;.v ?.n the Bliet-.sm·':li :hoop. W rt?zer, while the blacl.;:ni`h"^ vro"lc
was ^':.?.3_ being clone by Min., bending cand stra·iE-'~tening opex^;a.cns Tern f~ lso
bei~!,-, performed by pv~?cla prcss ppexa uaxs and tbat :1:11-, is more econcmical_~ard___
efV.-.;'.C?LT,`: f-C?.'-.' the i''C)r3^ ;:n ioC dGnE.' as it is beinga done now.'

Ve can see no _ rv.e?.n.tion, par'; icularly when the work as it i s being denc r..^vr ~·r^., bein- c'onc c;h-j.3_e ':.he b1c.clamiuh position existed. Them vTs L'n ?."'r'·~?': ~!~ CO;!$?CInt.' ~13?,S c^^`; E:`tClL1S?.V.ly b3T1.CI.ST1i.'f'.h vorlk at the b1F!C_,rC"13.ih ra;n.c!f pad;, (Se,:.-!". DiVI:r.on ~,rards TTo. 4453, 5744, 5826, 608, 6Ca?), nor has ;~4:^Ii o::c:!.r.^.. ire ~Jht been :,cozen: .

zn .^.r'~'..h.~::'OI:, Tl?E!TZ'!r.CnCnE ha.s the right to rearrange the work,, and OL!'.'.W':C3 "-n ^t', E^o.''?^.^!7_Ca1, C"i_C3ent. manner as it judges to be best. TUs
,'2^~a ~,cc, the r,? v%t t-o Wso'.vsh a. job t4 accomplish this goal. Management
r lt'.n r Rj~ii to v .Z"I!~.'s.Sl 'I . Fo: ition if a substantial part of the Sscrli h^s
d.~.c~.r.~cc,Me d e ,. 3 11C? only 1 _'~·~.tr~yion on these right s would be those w'?ieh may
be ret ~~ ~'.~ ?_n t:he !!~;.r, c^.-:len'; ~ Tdq such restriction has been pointed out in
'G?7.'; ;''.sr-', (SCCn'".r3. r3~.4'i.c.lnn A;~.-ard No. 1829, Third Division At uxds I-To. 60^2,
6o ~5, 73-C.

It is not rececr::ry to review the technical objections raised. by a;'~c Carr·^"e ri"?<'. 7,SSrC 7..:: clear regardless of the way it has been set fer'~"? . z~ is 4^53..'Cf,'11C' to Jrcide the issue on the merits for the grid^nce
oft, i·h^ ~,~3.:!'u'.F.'S, i^i·''~F''.' than '·n reject the claim on a technicality.

A W A R D

l7 '
Executive Seer; `-?xy

11TATIO:,AL RAILROAD ADJUSTME';T BOARD By Orcler of Second Division

Da ted at Chicago, Illinois, this 16th c'ay of November., 172.