C:\AWARDS\OUT\2-07162.htm

Form 1 NATIONAL kI1.LR0Af) ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 7162 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 6931 2-TRA ofStL-EW '76 The vf:cond Di.vi.siarr. ~~i,easisted of the regular members and in addition Referee ~~Yene `I. Ritter when award was rendered. fSysl~,_.;k Federation No. 25 Parties to L-LF

e:. ~,` Ra i.lway Ym11.oyes' Department

AF's. - ~,'i-U ~- Electrical Workers

Te:rmi.na]`. Railroad Association of Stt Louis

Dispute: Cl~.~i~7i ...,of .E's:,

1. That, on Tuesday, October 16, 7973, the Terminal Railroad Association nF 5t. Louis, Missouri, violated the Controlling Agreement,

part:vr:utarly Rule 26, a1:en Carrier auporvisor die

pat:chmd R'lee:t;rici,an W. Brown from ttteix Brooklyn Shops tq work on engine

1206 at: 14th Street, a separate seniority

entity where electricians are actively employed.

2. That, accordk:vgly,

the Terminal Railroad Association of

St. Louis be ordered to compensate (Bremen Avenue - 14th Street) Elect.ri.cian W. D. Mows, two hours and forty minutes time, at time and one half, for this October 16, 19'3 violation; and,

3. That, in addition thereto, Carrier be further

ordered

to pay to the Claimant, an accrued interest on the principal ampunt claimed, computed

6% per annum and compounded annually from the anniversary date of

the

claim.

Findings: The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that: The carrier or carriers and the employs or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employs 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 On Tuesday, October 16, 1973, Carrier supervisor dispatched Electrician Browns from their Brooklyn Shops to work on engine 1206 at 14th Streets a separate seniority entity where electricians are employed. The Organization contends that Rule 26-Seniority is a general. Firm I Award No. 7162
rage 2 rocker No. 6931

2-TRA o f. S th-EW

rule and is applicable to the assignment of work at each se-iiorii:y point; drat Rule 10 (a ) does not provide nor percni t t-ne moving of employees during their- assi.gnec hours from one seniority point to another, and is not= a special-rule but. a' general rule and can not take precedent over another general rule. The Organp::etimo '-urther contends that Rule IO(a), if applies! as urged by Carrier, would leave Role 26 meaningless; and that Award No. I5E>3, depended upon by (:.artier to uphold Carrier's position, is not relevant for the reasons that the involved Claimant in Award No. 2563 was sent to fill a positioil on another seniority district on his rest days. In this ~disput=e, Claimant was transferred during his workday assignment. The Organization further contends that Award No. 1563 is not pertinent to this case for the reason that it is a dispute con cerning a rats of pay - not the right to transfer from one seniority district to another. Carrier contends that Rule 26 is a general rule and in no way precludes the moving of employees as was done in this dispute; that Rule 10(a) specifically permits the moving of employees during their assigned hours, is a special rule, and, therefore, takes precedence over general rules; that: Rule 10(a ) woulrt tae rendered meaningless if Carrie-r were not permitted to move employees from their regular point of duty during their working hours for trqmporary service elsewhere; that: past practice on this property inclusively indicates that both the Organization and Carrier have recognized the right to move employees, as was done in this case, under the existing Rules 10 and 2.6, and as admitted by the Organization in Award No. 2563.

No awards have `7een cited hv either partv that interpret the language contained ft Rule 10(a). Rule 10 (a) is as follows:

Employees required to leave their regular point- of duty during their working hours for

temporary service elsewhere, will he paid

*'`**k*

until relieved or, at their option, returned to their regular point of duty.

It appears to this Neutral that although Rule 26 c'oes not specifically prohibit a temporary transfer of employees from one seniority district to another within a systems Rule 10 (a) does rat specifically allow transfer of employees from one seniroity district to another within a system. It further appears to this Neutral that it has been the understanding and practice of each of the parties to this dispute both the Carrier and Organization, on this ,property, have long recognized that under the provisions of Rule IO (a) and (b), Carrier may properly transfer an employee from one Seniority district to another Seniority district for temporary duty within the system. Carrier cites the langpagp contained in the first paragraph of "Position of Employes" which recognizes the propriety of Carrier's conduct in this instance. The "Position of Employes" contained in Award No. 1563 constitutes probative evidence that the transfer of employees between seniority districts on Carrier's system has long been recognized. Rules 10
Form 1 Award No. 7~, 62 Page 3 Docket No. b9~31

2-TRAofStL-EV ' 76

and 26 have been in effect ors this Property for 28 years. Award No. 1563 arose from an incident oacuring on November 17, 1950 - therefore, these rules were in effect at that time. Past practice may be considered in interpreting provisions of an ambiguous rule or rules. This Board, therefore, finds that past practice is determinative of this dispute, and particularly the application of Rules IO and 26 of the agreement. A WA R.1) --,---T-..- Claim Denied. NATIONAL R~ILRQAD ALWUBTM&NT BOARD By Order of Sqcono Division Attests Executive Secretary National Railroad Adjustment Board By: `~-~ A _~r___.-,~ --·~-~.~.T--.r--- B s h ^ dminis ativ Assis'ta t Ro sema rxe xa ~ Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 16th day-pf November,, 1976.