Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 7287
SECOND DIVISION Docket No.
6977
2-MP-CM-'77
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Martin I. Rose when award was rendered.
( System Federation No. 2, Railway Employes'
( Department, A. F. of L. - C. I. 0.
Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)
( Missouri Pacific Railroad Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company violated the current
Agreement, Memorandum Agreement and Decision No. SC-105 when
Cayman Apprentice T. W. Jacobson, Kansas City, Missouri, was sent
home on June
5, 197+.
2. That accordingly, the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, be ordered
to compensate Cayman Apprentice Jacobson in the amount of six
(6)
hours at the pro rata rate; for gasoline mileage for the required
trip home; and in addition to the money amounts claimed, an
additional amount of
6%
per annum compounded annually on the
anniversary date of the clam.
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,
193+·
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute
involved herein.
Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.
Claimant was employed by the Carrier at Kansas City, Missouri, as a
carman apprentice with assigned hours 7:00 A.M. to
3:00
P.M. On June 5,
197+
at approximately
9:00
A.M., the Claimant was sent home because he had
not turned in his apprentice lessons for the month.
The Agreement dated May
16, 197+,
effective May
20, 197+,
provides,
in part, as follows:
"1. Paragraph (1) of Rule
37
- Miscellaneous Apprentice Rules,
in which the Memorandum Agreement beginning on page
92
of the
current agreement is set forth, is amended to provide that
,.
Form 1 Award No. 7287
Page 2 Docket No. 6977
2-MP-CM-'77~'
"carman apprentices will be required to complete a technical
training course consisting of 72 lessons at the rate of
three lessons per month so that the apprentice will complete
all of the lessons within a two-year period. After the
effective date of this agreement, apprentices in service will
be required to complete the lessons at the rate of no less
than three per month . ...
Apprentices who do not have their lessons completed on
the date due will be sent home until the lessons are made
current and will not be paid for time lost..."
Petitioner contends that nothing in these provisions or the other
provisions of this agreement fixed the 5th of the month as the due date for
apprentice lessons, and that pursuant to these provisions, the apprentice
lessons were to be turned in within the month in which they were due.
Carrier maintains that its disputed actions with respect to the Claimant
were in accordance with paragraph
4
of the agreement quoted above.
An apprentice training program in the various crafts has existed on
the Carrier's property for marry years. Prior to the May
16;
197+ Agreement,
the program required completion of two apprentice lessons per month. The
record shows that during this period, the Master Mechanic at Kansas City
promulgated notice that apprentices turn in their lessons three days prior
to the eighth day of each month. The asserted purpose of this requirement
was to enable a check to be made to determine that all lessons were turned in
so that they could be mailed to reach the Railway Education Bureau by the
fifteenth of the month.
There is no evidence that any employe ox his representatives raised any
question or objection to this due date requirement for the submission of
apprentice lessons. Claimant, whose employment as a carman apprentice, began
on July 21, 1971, was required to comply with this due date requirement.
There is no claim or evidence that he was unaware of this requirement or
failed to comply with it prior to the instant case.
It is clear, from the record, that at the time the May
16,
197+ agreement
was
consummated
the existing and accepted due date for apprentice lessons
was the third day prior to the eighth day of the month. Paragraph 1 of that
agreement does not specify a due date. The clause provides for the completion
of the apprentice lessons per month. Paragraph
4
does not explicitly state
a due date for the lessons. However, by the language "apprentices who do
not have their lessons completed on the date due," the parties to the
agreement plainly recognized that due date for the lessons existed and
thereby indicated their intent that this provision was to be interpreted
and applied with respect to the then established due date fox the apprentice
lessons, which, as we have found, was the third day prior to the eighth day
of the month. Any doubt in this regard was subsequently dispelled by the
Form 1 Award No.
7287
Page
3
Docket No.
6977
2-MP-CM-'77
provision in Paragraph
4
of the June 2,
1975
agreement that "Lessons will
be due the 5th of each month."
The record establishes, without dispute, that Claimant was in default
with respect to the due date of his apprentice lessons and that Carrier
proceeded in accordance with the provisions of the agreement then applicable
to such a situation. The claim must be denied.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
BY -~ .c~.~J
/42~
Rosemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 19th day of April,
1977.