Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUST= M BOARD Award No. 73+2
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 7186
2-sCL-MA-'77
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee James C. McBrearty when award was rendered.
( International Association of Machinists and
( Aerospace Workers
Parties to Dispute:
( Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. The Carrier violated the controlling Agreement on December 3,
5
and 6, 197+ and January 2, 1975 when it assigned Machinist Apprentices
to work Machinist Helpers job (attending tool room) Uceta Shops,
Tampa, Florida which is classified as Helpers work under Rule 53.
2. That accordingly, the Carrier be ordered to compensate Machinist
Helpers J. E. Scott, eight 'pours overtime on December
3,
197;
J. W. Kleckley, eight hours overtime on December 5, 197+; H. Lock,
eight hours overtime on December
6,
1974 and J. E. Scott eight hours
overtime on January 2, 1975.
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.
The claim is that Carrier violated Rule 53 of the Agreement in using
Machinist Apprentices temporarily in the tool room at Uceta Shops, Tampa,
Florida, -while the Machinist helpers assigned to the tool room were used
elsewhere.
Rule 53, entitled "Machinist Helpers", specifically states that Helpers'
work shall consist of "... attending tool room ...''. Rule 52 entitled
"Machinist Apprentices", merely says, "Include regular and helper apprentices
in connection with the pork as defined in Rule 51". Now, Rule 51, entitled
"Classification" sets forth the types of work to be considered
Machinists,
work and makes no mention of "attending tool room".
r
'i
Form 1 Award No. 731+2
Page 2 Docket No. 7186
2-SCZ-MA-`77
Therefore, Petitioner argues that Carrier could not use Machinist
Apprentices to attend the tool room, but -was required to use only Machinist
Helpers.
However, we must also examine Rules 26(a) and 4o(q). Rule 26, entitled,
"Assignment of Work" states:
"(a) Dlone but~mechanics or apprentices regularly employed as
such shall do mechanics' work as per special rules of each
craft, except foremen at points where no mechanics are
employed." (Emphasis added)
Rule 46(q), entitled, "Machinist Apprentices" contains a schedule for
regular apprentices showing a division of time on various classes of work.
Specifically mentioned in this schedule is, "2 months tool room".
In the handling on the property, it was conceded by the General Chairman
that if a Machinist had been used in the tool room rather than an apprentice,
no claim would have been filed, since the Machinist, as master of his trade,
may perform arty duties of his craft.
Now, Rule 26(a), supra, makes no distinction between the work that may
be performed by a mechanic ox an apprentice.
Thus, if Machinists may be used in the tool room in lieu of helpers,
then under Rule 26(a) Apprentices likewise may be used in the tool room, as
they may perform the same work as mechanics.
This Board has consistently held that there is no violation of an
Agreement when mechanics perform work previously performed by helpers. (See
Second Division Awards 4683, 4473, 41+71, 4392, 4381, 4380, 4257, 4125, 4114,
4110, 393+, 3850, 3835, 3801, 3751, 3723, 364+, 36+3, 3617, 3603, 3511, 3510,
3509 3508, 3+95, 3263, 3262, 3261, and 1380).
Moreover, it must be remembered that Rule 46(q) provides for Machinist
Apprentice training in the tool room for two (2) months, with no restriction.
There is absolutely no language here saying that the "two months tool room"
means only training in repairs of shop tools and machinery. The latter may
well be the ideal use of Machinist Apprentices in the tool room, but Article
46(q) does not impose such a restriction on Carrier.
This Board is mt empowered to rewrite the parties' Agreement, but is only
permitted to interpret the language which the parties themselves chose to
express their bargained intent.
Consequently, we must find that the Agreement was not violated.
Form 1
Page
3
A
Tr1
A R D
Claim denied.
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
By /
c/semarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated flat Chicago, Illinois, this 8th day of September, 1977.
Award No. 73.2
Docket No. 7186
2-SCZ-MA-'77
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
t "
IWAO