Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUST!, ~IV 1 BOARD Award No.
6920
SECOND DIVISION Docket No.
6801+
2-C&P4^l-MA-' 75
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Harold M. Weston when award was rendered.
( International Association of Machinists and
( Aerospace Workers, District No.
3,
A.F. of L.
Parties to Dispute:
(
( Chicago and North Western Transportation Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. The Chicago and North Western Transportation Co. violated
Rules
29, 53, 61, 62,
of the July 1,
1921
Rules Agreement
as amended when on Sunday, July
8, 1973
it assigned Foreman
Joseph Papich, Chicago Shops, to complete inspection, repair
and recheck of the air brake system on Diesel Unit No.
5022-B.
2.
That accordingly, the C&NW Transportation Co. pay Mr. E.
Kuhlmann, Machinist Inspector, eight
(8)
hours pay at rate and
one-half the Machinist Inspector's rate on July
8, 1973.
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 claim is that Foreman Papich performed machinists' work on the
air brake system of Diesel Unit No.
5022-B
on July
8, 1973,
a Sunday and
assigned rest day for both l1ir. Papich and Claimant.
The Diesel Unit had been placed in Carrier's Chicago Shops on July
5, 1973,
due to the malfunctioning of its air brake system and beginning
that day and continuing on through July
7, 1973,
machinists worked a total
of
15 3/4
hours inspecting -the system and attempting to determine the
defect. Of that total, 10 ~ hours were devoted by Claimant to the work.
Form 1 Award No.
6920
Page 2 Docket No. 6804
2-C&NW-',4A-'
75
The cause of the malfunction had not been found by Sunday, July
8, 1973,
when the machinist; scheduled to work did not report for duty.
Papich inspected the equipment that day and found the root of the
trouble - a slight air leak: - and, according to Carrier, a pipefitter
then attended to the necessary repairs.
Under these specific circumstances, we are not satisfied that the
Foreman trespassed on machinists' work rights. The record does not
contain adequate evidence to establish that Mr. Papich performed any
of the repair work or used tools, there being a conflict between the
parties with respect to that issue.
While Rule 62 covers engine inspection and air conditioner work,
it was not a violation of the Rule for the Foreman to inspect the
equipment and to attempt to find the cause of the malfunction after
machinists had been conducting their inspection for over
15
hours
without locating the reason for the difficulty with the system. The
foregoing is not intended, of course, to reflect on the machinists'
inspection work performed on July
5,
6 and
7,
for they had already
explored and eliminated possibilities that contributed to the success
in finall;yr deter-nininb the cause of the malfunction.
The claim will be denied under the specific facts of this case.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad .Adjustment Board
BY-.L'2/~J _( i
Rosemarie Brasch - Administrative Assittant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 26th day of August,
1975.