Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 6948
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 6813-I
2-ICG-I-°75
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Irwin M. Lieberman when award was rendered.
( Paul E. Murphy
(
Parties to
Dispute
( Illinois Central Gulf Railroad
Di
s2ute: Claim of Employes:
Comes now Paul Murphy, by the undersigned counsel and urges
the National Railroad Adjustment Board to review this submission
and the attached exhibits and thereafter to render a decision
which will restore and/or correct his aeziority status to the
position where apprentices who come colt of the apprentice program
are not placed ahead of him in seniority.
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 were given due notice of hearing thereon.
Claimant was hired on June 10, 1968 as a Machinist Apprentice at
Bloomington, Illinois by the former Gulf, Mobile and Ohio Railroad, under
the provisions of the GM & 0 (Northern Region) Shop Craft Agreement. On
September 15, 1972 Claimant completed his apprentice training and began to
work as a Machinist at Bloomington with a seniority date of September 15, 19'12.
In the interim, on May 19, 1972, an agreement was signed by the Shopcraft
General Chairmen and the Illinois Central Railroad changing and improving the
apprentice training agreement on that property. On August 10, 1972 the merger
between the IC and the GM & 0 was approved. On December 21, 1972 the Shopcraft
General Chairmen reached an implementing agreement with the merged Carriers.
On February 5, 1973 Claimant was transferred to Memphis, Tennessee with his
seniority dovetailed into the Memphis seniority roster. Under the IC new
apprentice training program all apprentices in service on the effective date
of that Agreement received a seniority date of July 1, 1972, upon completion
of their training.
Form 1
Page 2
Award No. 6948
Docket No. 6813-I
2-ICG-I-'75
The Claimant argues that he was entitled to the same journeyman
seniority date as that received by the employees who had served their
apprenticeship on the former IC. He contends that he was placed at the
bottom of the seniority list at Memphis in spite of his service since 1968
while other apprentices with much less service were placed ahead of him
(having received their training on the IC). He contends that the actions
of the Carrier in this instance were discriminatory, unlawful and a violation
of the contract.
The Organization, during the handling of this dispute on the property,
stated that they had concluded Claimant had been treated fairly. The Organization
pointed out that Claimant was transferred to the Memphis shop three months
after the effective date of the new IC apprentice training agreement and was
subject to all the rules and agreements at his new point. It is also stated
that Claimant retained his seniority at his old GM & 0 homepoint as well as
lifetime protection under the transfer and merger agreements.
The Carrier argues that none of the Agreements pertinent to this
dispute were violated and that Claimant is in fact asking that the Board
amend the agreements in order to adjust his seniority date. Carrier contends
that Claimant's requested action is outside the Board's jurisdiction.
Claimant considers it unreasonable and unfair that apprentices who
came out of the training program subsequent to his completion received a n
older journeyman seniority date. He desires the Board in its Award to correct
this inequity. Unfortunately, much as Claimant's appeal may have the cloak
of righting injustice, this Board cannot deal in equity. The validity of
Agreements cannot be challenged in this forum. Our function is to make sure
that the Agreements are applied as written and in this instance it appears
tha`: the Agreements were meticulously adhered to by Carrier. There is no
contract violation established by Petitioner. As Carrier points out, this
Board's function is limited, under the Railway Labor Act, to adjudicating
disputes growing out of the interpretation or application of agreements. We
canr;ot change or amend agreements, which is the thrust of the remedy sought
in this dispute.
A WA R P
Claim dismissed.
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
B~
Ro emarie Rraseh -- Admini.strative AssWant
DsteJ a t Chicago, Illinois, this 26th day of September, 1975.
NATIONAL RAILROAD AIk1USTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division