Form 1
Parties to Dispute: ( C. I. 0.
(
( Norfolk and Western Railway Company (formerly The
( New York, Chicago and St. Louis Railroad Company)
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No.
7289
SECOND DIVISION Docket No.
7118
2-N&W-CM-'77
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Herbert L. Marx, Jr. when award was rendered.
System Federation No. 16, (Formerly System Federation
No.
57)
Railway Employes' Department, A. F. of L.
(Carmen)
1. That under the Current Working Agreement the Carrier improperly
allowed Carman V. Cook, furloughed at Narlo, Ohio, October 2,
197+,
' to perform extra work at Bellevue, Ohio, Car Shop, beginning
October
3, 197+.
2. That the following Carmen, as listed below, be compensated eight
~(8)
hours at time and one-half rate each day worked by Carman V.
Cook at Bellevue, Ohio, from October
3, 1974,
and each day
worked thereafter, as follows:
October
3, 197+ .....
October
4, 197+ .....
October
5, 197+ .....
October
6, 197+ .....
October
7, 197+ .....
October
8, 1971+ .....
October 11,
197+ ....
October 12,
197+ ....
October
13, 1g74..
October
14,
October
15,
October
18,
October
19,
October 20,
October 21,
October 22,
October 25,
October
26,
October
27,
October
28,
October
29,
November 1,
November 2,
November
3,
November
4,
November
5,
197+ . . . .
197.............
197+............
197+............
1974 ............
1974 ............
197.............
1974 . . . .
1974 . . . .
1974 . . . .
197-....
1g71+....
1974 . . . .
197.. . . .
1974 . . . .
1974 . . . .
197+. . . .
Meyer
Tennill
Stines
Contos
Smith
Ratliff
Headrick
Beier
Miller
Smith
Ratliff
Swander
Eichenlaub
Guhn
Shaw
Stage
Swander
Tennill
Hoskins
Shaw
Bilbrey
Dempsey
Ohl
Hoskins
Myers
Bilbrey
f
Form 1 Award No-7289
Page 2 Docket No. 7118
2-N&W-CM-'77
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.
This dispute is based on the contention of the Employes that Carrier
improperly assigned Cayman V. Cook to work at Bellevue; Ohio where he held
no seniority. Cayman Cook was temporarily furloughed at Narlo, Ohio due to
work stoppage of a major shipper. He was assigned at Bellevue, Ohio to a
position with the same rest days of the position at Narlo. That position was
not posted for bulletin to afford Cayman holding seniority at Bellevue the
opportunity to exercise their seniority preference.
Claims were instituted in behalf of off-duty Carmen holding seniority
at Bellevue for each day Cayman Cook worked at that point, alleging a
violation of Rules 16 and 28. -
Carrier contends that the Local Chairman at Bellevue agreed to the
interim employment of Cayman Cook without the necessity of bulletening the
position. The Local Chairman furnished a signed statement denying that
contention. We need not resolve that issue here. This Board has long held
that local officials and Local Committees may reach agreement to implement
existing rules or agreements, but they may not make binding agreements or
change existing agreements. See Second Division Awards 3111 and
x+755.
Carrier employed Cayman Cook to perform Carmen's work at Bellevue without
demonstrating a need for additional manpower and making such position available
to Carmen holding seniority at that point. A strick application of the
agreement requires that Claim No. 1 be sustained. See Second Division
Award 3163.
The record shows that Carrier's action was in good faith and designed to
furnish interim employment to Cayman Cook for the duration of the industrial _
work stoppage at his home point. It is further noted in Carrier's Submission
it contends Carman Cook had a contractual right to displace less than four
year Carmen employed at Bellevue, which he chose to do; that the arrangements
made were to avoid such displacement for the interim period. We fail to find
where the Employes refute that contention in their Rebuttal. Claimants were
fully employed, but that alone is not an estoppel to damages. We find,
however, under the circumstances here in existence Claim No. 2 should be
denied.
Form 1
Page
3
Claim No. 1 is sustained.
Claim No. 2 is denied.
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
A W A R D
Award No. 7289
Docket No. 7118
2-N&W-CM-'77
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
~semarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 29th day of April, 1977.
-r