Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTNIETV'1z BOARD Award No. 7139
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 69+6
2-TP-MPTofNO-MA-'76



( International Association of Machinists
( and Aerospace Workers
Parties to Dispute:
( Texas Pacific-Missouri Pacific Terminal
( Railroad of New Orleans..

Dispute: Claim of Employes:




















Form 1 ~":i~:ard No. 7139
Page ? Docket No. 6
-TP-M.PfofNO-MA-' 76








































Form 1 Award No. 7139
Page 3 Docket No. 6946
2-TP-M1xI'ofNO-MA-' 76
"(e-4) Where an employe is required to travel from his head
uarters point to another point outside the environs of the city
or town in which his headquarters point is located, the Carrier will
either provide transport/ anon without charge or reimburse the
employe for such transpcxwtatien cost.
('Transportation' means travel by rail, bus, or private automobile
and 'transportation cost' means the established passenger fare or
automobile mileage allowance where automobile is used.)
(e-5) When such employes are unable to return to their headquarters
on any day they shahl be entitled,.in addition to the allowance
under paragraphs (e-3) and (e-.4) of.this Rule, to reimbursement for
actual necessary cost of lodging and two meals peg day while away
. from headquarters, with a maximum of $4.00 per 4ay, i.e., the 24
hour period following the time where they employe's last shift bean-
but on such days they shall not be paid fQr any hours after their
assigned hours unless actually working, or travel~ng to another work
location. Accommodations on a sleeper may be furnished in lieu of
the lodging above provided for any time spent oA the sleeper will
not be considered travel time.










Form 1 Award No. 7139
Page 4 Docket No. 69+6
2-TP-NNPTofNO-MA-' 76 'wave












(g) Nonconsecutive Rest Days
The typical work week is to be one with two consecutive days off,
' and it is the Carrier's obligation to grant this. Therefore, when
an operating problem is mot which may affect the consecutiveness
of the rest days of positions ox assignments covered by Paragraphs (c),
(d) and (e), the following procedure shall be used;
1. All possible re lar relief positions shall be established
pursuant to Rule 1, Paragraph ~e).
2. Possible use of rest days other than Saturday and Sunday,
by agreement or in accordance with other provisions of this Rule T.

3. Efforts will be made by the parties to agree on the aqcumulation
of rest time and the granting of longer consecutive rest periods.
' ~-: , ~the_ ~'~ suitable or practicable plans which r: ay be suggested by
either of the parties shall be considered and el:tbrt made to came to
an agreement thereon.
5. If the 'foregoing does. not solve the problem, them some pf the
relief men may be given nonconsecutive rest days,
h. If'after all the foregoing has been done there still remains
service which can only be performed by requiring !employes to work
in excess of five days p&z· week, the number of regular assignments
necessary to avoid this may be made with two nonconsecutive days
off.
7. The least desirable solution of the problem would be to work
some regular employes on the sixth or seventh days at pvjertime rates
and thus withhold work from additional relief men.
Form 1 Award No. 7139
Page 5 locket No. 6946
2-TP-MPTofNO-M.A-~' 76
"8. If the parties are in disagreement over the necessity
of spl i.tting the rest days on any such assignments, the Carrier may























Foxm 1
-Page 6

2.

Award No. 7139
Docket No. 69+6
2-TP-MPTofNO-MA-'76

C,'11..ararrt-ees :

Except to the e.; i;,~=~, t t;-~ .~' the covxerage of existing guarantees was extended to certas-,. e3r,,,,~ J'_oyes covered by Article II, Section I (e) of the March 1,"), 194~ Agreement, the adoption of the 'shorter work week' rule in Article 1:I, Section 1, of that agreement did not create a gLLara.ntee of any- rcLuber of hours or days of work." (Emphasis supplied)

That in restituticrv:lq the `~'~:xas Pacific - Missouri Pacific Terminal Railroad of New Orleans ~e ordered to reimburse the following Machinists at the applicable punitive rate of pay for eight (8) hours each day on the respective dates given:

F. J. Rodriguez ... J. D. Rafferty.... A. J. Cornibe..... E. G. Rivero...... L. Lang........ E. W. Camardelle.. F. G. Albrecht.... S. D. Smith.......


...February 23, 197+ ...February 24, 197+


...... March 1, 1974

. . . . . March 2, 19'7+

. Maxch 2, 197+
...... March 3, 197+
...... March 3, 197+
...... March g, lo, 16,


Fox work entitlement they were justly due and denied by the Carrier
under the controlling Agreement that being the Consolidated Shop
Crafts Agreement effective August 1, 1969. Specifying the assign-. ment s as per Exhibit

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 employe$ involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 193+.

This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.



The employees assert that Carrier blanked a Machinist seven (7) day swing shift relief position, for the purpose of filling a General Foreman's job. It is the employees' contention that said action demonstrated a lack of a need for such a position, to the point that a rebulletin of a 5-day position (with Saturday and Sunday rest days) was mandated.
Form 1 Page 7

Award No. 7:

Docket No. 69.6
2-TP-MPTofNO-MA-'76

Although Carrier subsequenti~,= rebulletined in a manner acceptable to the employees, the Organization denies that said action makes moot a consideration, of the period of time during which the asserted violation continued.

In Carrier's defense of its ~.-Crion, it points out that it did not take steps which warrant a conclusion what five (5) day positions were mandatory, and it asserted, on the property, that during the applicable period, service was protected by at least one Machinist per shift, seven days per week.

Certainly, the Agreement speaks to concepts of manning and rest days, but, in our extensive review of this lengthy docket we do not find that a blanl~ing of one seven-.day position results i4 an at;tomatic requirement of redes3gnatiori of all fiositions in the manner suggested by the employees. Nor are we aple to find a showing that Carrier's action was other than that required to protect the required service.

We do not note any Awards which support the contentions advanoqd by the employees, and accordingly, we dismiss the claim for failure of proof.

A W A R D

Claim dismissed.

Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board

By


Date at C4icago, Illinois, this 8th day of October, 1976.

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
,.

r_