Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT' BOARD Award No. 7018
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 6847
2-MP-EW-'76
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Walter C. Wallace when award was rendered.
( System Federation No. 2, Railway Employes'
( Department, A. F. of L. - C. I. 0.
Parties to Dispute: ( Electrical Workers
( Missouri Pacific Railroad Company
(
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company violated and continues
to violate the Apprentice Agreement by denying to Apprentice
Electricians J. E. Mayfield, W. E. Arendt, Jr.,. C. L.* Green,
M. A. Jeu, W. D. Godwin, and R. L. Jordan their respective
rate guarantees as set forth in the January 31, 1973 Letter
Agreement.
2. That, accordingly, the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company be
ordered to make each of the named claimants whole with respect
to the difference between their prior in service classification
pay rate and the apprentice basic rate; and,
3. That such adjustment to be computed from the indenture date of
the individual claimant and shall be continuous until such time
as this violation is otherwise corrected.
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.
All claimants are laborers represented by the firemen & Oilers, who
are part of System Federation No. 2, and each entered the electrician apprentice
program pursuant to a Letter of Understanding dated January 31, 1973. The
dispute concerns their right, under this agreement, to retain the higher laborer's
pay rather than the pay applicable to apprentices.
`'Form 1 Award No. 7018
Page 2 Docket No. 6847
2-MP-EW-176
It is the
claimantsf contention, advanced by the Organization, that
the Understanding clearly provides that "...employes in service on the effective date of the Memorandum Agreement who meet the criteria for entrance into,
the new apprentice training program will, upon entering the apprentice training
program, be paid the rate of pay for apprentices provided by the Memorandum
Agreement or the rate of pay of the position held at the time they enter into
the program, whichever is greater."
The Carrier contends this provision is not applicable across craft
lines. It was intended solely for the protection of those in-service helpers
who desired to enter apprenticeship programs for their individual craft.
Further, it is pointed out that the Firemen & Oilers were not a party to the
Understanding.
The correspondence between the parties, including references to
discussions while on the property, indicate that each side supported a different
interpretation of the Understanding. The Organization relies upon letters
from various General Chairmen, including some who participated in the negotiations, to support their interpretation. Although the Carrier maintained a
position in opposition it was not until its submission to this Board that it
fully expanded and explained its interpretation. This lead the Organization
Uto urge this Board to disregard these arguments because "...the Carrier has
introduced new evidence of illustrations to emphasize this new avenue of argument which was never the subject of correspondence nor the subject of discussion
on the property by Management with the General Chairmen..."
We do not agree. While on the property each held to. its:views on
interpretation of the agreement. In its submission before this Board the
Carrier's arguments were expanded but they were not new and, therefore, subject
to exclusion.
The Organization's reliance upon the individual interpretations of
the General Chairmen is a matter open to question by the authorities. See
Wigmore on Evidence, Sections 2462, 2466, 2470. We believe the reasoning of
the Second Division Award 6947 should be controlling here. That case involved
the same parties in a contest over the same Understanding in the same respect.
There, however, a painter's helper rather than a laborer moved to electrician
apprentice. Referee Leiberman observed that the dispute depended upon the
meaning of the term "employes" in the Understanding. He analyzed the agreement
through illustrative examples and concluded that this term "...refers to employes
of each craft and is not generic to employes of Carrier or even to employes in
other shop crafts as a group."
We agree with this interpretation and, as a consequence, the claim must
be denied.
Form 1
Page 3
Claim denied.
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
Award No. 707_8
Docket No. 6847
2-MP-EW-'76
A WA R D
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
By
emarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 23rd day of March, 1976.