Form 1 NATIONAL 1;F~TL'i"J,'X: ADO'
;wm.
:;..r1T
BOARD Award No.
7189
SECGNI> D-VI,I01'..' Docket No.
6971
2-N&W-SM-'
`?6
The Second Division consisted of 'the regular members and in
addition Referee Martin I. Rose when award was rendered.
Sheet N:e tal Workers' International
( Association
Parties to Dispute:
( Norfolk.and Western Railway Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That the Norfolk and Western Railway Company violated Rule
17
of the current agreement when it failed to identify and specify,
for bidding purposed the position what was advertised on February
4, 1974.
2. That the Norfolk and Western Railway Company be ordered to bulletin
all jobs properly identified as to either Tinner or Pipefitter
as was the former practice in order that the employes who bid
will be able to determine the jobs and duties of same.
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 '5.,
1934.
This Division of the Adjus:mentBoard has jurisdiction over the dispute
involved herein.
Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.
Petitioner contends that Carrier violated Rule 17 of the applicable
agreement by posting Bulletin No. 27, dated February
4, 1974,
which advertised
a job vacancy as follows:
"Sheet Metal Worker or Tinner, second shift, Diesel Shop,
general metal work consisting mainly of diesel locomotive
repair work..."
According to Petitioner, this description was inadequate under the rule
in that it lacked sufficient information as to the type of work to be
performed by reason of the failure to specify whether the vacancy was a
tinner or pipefitter job. Petitioner argues that the existence of separate
tinners and pipefitters roster for many years and the past practice establish
that such job specification is required under the rule.
Form 1 Award No.
7189
Page
2
Docket No.
6971
2-N&W-SM-'76
Carrier maintains that the job specification claimed by Petitioner is
not mandated by Rule 17, that this contention is supported by Rule
84
which
classifies tinning and piping as sheet metal workers' work, and that no
probative evidence supports the assertion that past practice was violated
by the disputed bulletin.
Rule
17
reads in part, as follows:
"When new jobs are created or vacancies occur in the
respective crafts, `;,he oldest employees in point of
service shall, if sufficient ability is shown by trial,
be given preference in filling such new jobs or any
vacancies that may be desirable to them. All vacancies or
new jobs created wi-_'_1 be bulletined.
Bulletins must be posted-five
(5)
days before vacancies are
permanently filled._.
An employee who bids in a job should, in a general way, be
familiar with it..."
After careful consideration, we find that the disputed bulletin did not
violate this rule. No wording in the rule required the bulletin to specify
whether the vacancy advertised was either a tinner or pipefitter job.
Rule
17
is silent with respect to the nature and extent of the job
description which must be sta:ted-in a bulletin advertising a vacancy for
bidding pursuant to its terms. The suggestion in the fourth paragraph of the
rule that the bidder should, "in a general way," be familiar with the job
does not establish any additional informational obligation on the part of
the Carrier, and, at most, se;7es as a caveat to bidders in connection with
the trial requirement.
The long standing existence of separate rosters of tinners and pipefitters offers no persuasive probatory consideration on the issue. We are
not referred to any rule which establishes these job titles as positions,
and Rule 84 classifies tinning and pipefitting as sheet metal workers' wor4.
The record does not reveal the proof necessary to establish the past
practice relied on by Petitioner. While, in the past, some bulletins have
advertised job vacancies as pipefitter, there have also been bulletins posted.
with job descriptions substantially similar to the description in the
disputed bulletin. These differences in bulletins issued under Rule
17
demonstrate that there has not been the historical regularity and uniformity
which is essential for a finding of past practice.
Our conclusion that this claim must be denied is consistent with prior
awards which have determined substantially similar issues (See Second
Division Awards
6069, 6160, 6161, 6162).
Form 1
Page
3
Claim denied.
Attest: Executive Secretaxy
National Railroad Adjustment Board
P W A R D
Award No.
7189
Docket No.
6971
2-N&W-SM-'
76
NATIONAL
RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
By
v
.osemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 3rd day of December,
1976.