Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No: 6964
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 6852-T
2-BN-CM-'75
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee David P. Twomey when award was rendered.
( System Federation No. 7, Railway-Employes'
( Department, A. F. of L. - C. I. 0.
Parties to Dispute:, ( (Carmen)
( Burlington Northern Inc*
Disputs: Claim of 9mployes
:
1. That the Burlington Northern, Inc* violated Rules 83 and 98c of
the current agreement when it assigned a Machinist to perform
Carmen's duties in lieu of Carman C. D. Greeley, Vancouver,
Washington, for four (4) hours at the punitive rate on July
9,
1973.
2. That accordingly the Carrier be ordered to compensate Carman
C. D. Greeley four (4) hours on Monday July 9, 1973.
Findinss:
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
Ra ilwny Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.
This Division of the Adjustment Board hats jurisdiction over the
dispute involved herein.
Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance a t hearing thereon.
The Organization contends that on July 9, 1973, on the 7:00 A.M. to
3:00 P.M. shift, a Machinist was assigned to remove a defective coupler on
Engine 4252 and replaced it with a new coupler under the direction of Foremen
A. Smith (Employes Exhibit A). The Organization contends that the Machinist
who allegedly performed the work under Foreman A. Smith was Machinist D.
Yankee (Employes Exhibit D).
The Carrier contends that on July 9, 1973, the regular locomotive cab
carpenter was on duty and performed the work involved. The Carrier further
contends that Machinist Yankee was not assigned to do the work alleged nor
was Foreman A. Schmidt on duty on July 9, 1973. The Carrier asserts that
Foreman A. Schmidt was on vacation on July 9, 1973 (Employes Exhibit 'f).
The Organization attempts to refute the Carrier's contention as follows:
Form 1 , Award No. 6964
Page
2 Docket No. 6852-T
2-BN-CH-175
To Whom it Hay Concern: .
I have studied Hr. DeButts' letter of February 28, 1974. I
must refute his second paragraph in its entirety. It is true that
locomotive carpenter L. W: Winters was
on
duty on July 9, 1973, and
was performing Carman duties, but it is also true that Machinist
Yankee was assigned to do Carman's work as stated in the claim, as
L. W. Winters was performing duties elsewhere.
s/ Cliff Sharp
Employees Exhibit N, Attachment 1
The local chairman does not contend that he himself saw Machinist. Yankee
perform the work, nor does he submit a statement from any person purporting
to have seen Machinist Yankee perform
the work
in question. Nor does the
statement deal with the Carrier's contentions that the Foreman,
whom
the
Organization alleged directed the work
to
be done by a machinist, was on
vacation on the,date in question.
This Board does not resolve issues of credibility. It is settled
beyond question that the Organization has
the
burden of proving all the
elements of its claim. First and fundamental to
the
Organization claim
on
behalf of carman C. D. Greeley for four hours pay at the time and onehalf rate for July 9, 1973, is the proving to this Board that Shift Foreman
S. Smith or Schmidt did. in fact assign Machinist D. Yankee to remove and
replace a defective coupler. Clearly, the Organization has not met its ,
burden of proof concerning this matter and we must therefore deny the claim.
A WA R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
By
R,o rie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 14th day of November, 1975.