Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTN~'1\uI' BOARD Award No.
7386
SECOND DIVISION Docket No.
7023
2-c&o-E.w-
t
77
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Nicholas H. Zurnas when award was rendered.
{ System Federation No.
4,
Railway Employes'
( Department, A. F. of L. - G. I. 0.
Parties to Dispute: ( (Electrical Workers)
(
( The Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company
Dispute: Claim of E=loyes:
1. That on January
16, 1974,
the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company
violated the current agreement, particularly Rules
29
and 115 of
the Shop Crafts' Agreement, when in lieu of calling and using
Electrician Robert Demerest, Carrier dispatched Supervisor Larry
roster to the Grand Rapids Transportation Yard to make electrical
repairs to a defective load regulator on Engine
5253.
2.
That by reason of this violation, the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway
Company be ordered to pay Electrician Robert Demerest four
(4)
'nouns pay at the applicable electricians' rate pursuant to Rule
4
of the Shop Crafts' Agreement.
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.
On the claim date in question a Yard Inspector called the Dispatch Foreman
advising that he was on Locomotive
5253
in Grand Rapids Yard and it would
not load. The Yard inspector suggested that the problem might be electrical.
A Maintenance Supervisor was sent to the unit to determine the nature of
the difficulty. He discovered that it was due to a defective rheostat.
The Maintenance Supervisor temporarily corrected the difficulty by jumping
out one-half of the rheostat. The next morning the unit was brought into
the shop and repairs were made by an electrician. The claim herein is fox
four hours at the overtime rate for the actions taken by the Maintenance
Supervisor.
r_. ,
Form 1 Award No. 7386
Page 2 Docket No. 7023
2-C&O-EW-'77
Under the particular circumstances of this dispute, the Board finds
that such incidental work performed by a supervisor in an effort to ascertain
the reasons whir the unit would not operate was within the supervisory
duties of a supervisor and not violative of the agreement between the parties.
In Second Division Award No. x+233, the Board found, in pertinent part,
as follows:
"The claim is that the carrier assigned the diesel foreman to
go out and perform work contracted to the electrical workers.
But the Carrier alleges that until after the arrival of the
diesel supervisor it was not known whether the trouble was
electrical or otherwise, and the record indicates nothing to
the contrary. In fact, the Employes placed in the record the
initial denial of the claim, which stated that upon the call to
the yardmaster at She roan no indication was given as to the
nature of the trouble or what craft might be needed to make
repairs. The carrier had a clear right to send the diesel
supervisor to find what was wrong, and to do so without sending
out a mechanic of each craft whose work might later prove to
be involved.
At any rate, the carrier did not 'assign the diesel su-o_ervisor
_to perform work contracted to the Electrical Workers;' it assigned
him to learn what had to be done, which was no violation of the
Agreement. His inspection of the inoperative diesel was clearly
within his supervisory duties.
Since the foreman and the engine crew did not discover the
looseness of the screw before the diesel supervisor's arrival, it
was presumably not apparent to the eye, and was then discovered
by normal testing of tightness which at the same time perhaps
tightened the screw; but even if it was not tightened in that
operation, the supervisor would still have been within his duties
if he tightened it to find whether its looseness, and not some
other defect, had caused the trouble. It can hardly be argued
that he should have sent for an electrician to tighten the screw
so that he could observe the result, or that upon learning it he
should have loosened the screw and sent for an electrician
to tighten it again." (Underscoring added,)
A W A R D
Claim denied.
Form 1
Page
3
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
Award
1~1o
. 7380
Docket No. 7023
2-C&o-Ew-t77
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTNENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
BY
emarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 8th day of November, 1977
,"Ilse
-"001