Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 6684
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 6455
2-C&O-CM-'74
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Louis Yagoda when award was rendered.
( System Federation No. 41, Railway Employes'
( Department, A. F. of L. - C. I. 0.
Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)
( The Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company
( (Chesapeake District)
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That Freight Car Painter, C. V. Stith's service rights and
rules of the Shop Crafts Agreement were violated October
5, 1971, account the Carrier abolishing the painter job
and transferring said painter work to the carmen in violation of Rule
32.
Carmen's Special Rule
173
and Supplement
No. 5 of the Shop Crafts Agreement.
2. Accordingly, Freight Car Painter Stith is entitled to be
compensated eight (8) hours at Freight Car Painters
applicable straight tine rate for October
5p 6, 7,
8, 11,
12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21s 22, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29;
November 1,
2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18,
19, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 29, 30;
December 1 and
2, 1971,
and each day thereafter, five (5) days each week until
said violation is corrected and the painter is recalled
to peiform said painters work.
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 a t hearing
thereon.
Form 1 Award No. 6684
Page 2 Docket No. 6455
2-C80-CM-'74
We find that we are unable to reach consideration of the
conflict concerning whether or not there was "sufficient work to
justify employing a mechanic of each craft" (in this case, the
painter craft) and whether or not such circumstances justified the
designation of either painters or carmen "to perform the available
work" because Rule 32 (c) from which the quoted language is taken
and which expresses just such conflict as is the substance of the
instant claim, was not preliminarily invoked and utilized by
Employes.
It must be noted that Rule 32(c) holds open the possibilities
that there may or may not be sufficient work to employ a mechanic
of a particular craft. It must be assumed that in writing this
the parties had in mind other than a positive assurance that any
degree of work no matter how small is guaranteed to be assigned
exclusively to a particular craft. As to whether (a) that work
diminishes to a point at which it may properly be absorbed as
incidental activity of another craft and (b) whether the craft to
which so assigned is the rightful recipient of that work (whether
by traditional functional overlap or because the work is so minimal
in nature or for other reasons) is a subject which the parties have
agreed to mutually examine as part of their survey before resorting
to the claims appeal machinery. Employes have failed to join. in
such efforts here.
Employes' contention that the procedure provided for in Rule
32(c) was too cumbersome and impracticable in this instance is one
which this body is without authority to pursue. We have no power
to amend or qualify that to which the parties have mutually committed
themselves.
Accordingly, in accord with Awards No. 6563, 6564, 6565,
6566 and 6569 involving the same parties, the claim must fall.
F
A WA R D
Claim of Employes
denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Secon&-Division
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
B
Y
Rosemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated a t Chicago, Illinois, this 26th day of April, 1974.