Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No.
7+26
SECOND DIVISION Docket No.
7357
2-LT-USWA-'77
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee James C. McBrearty when award was rendered.
_ ( United Steelworkers of America
( A.F. of L. - C.I,O.
Parties to Dispute:
-
( The Lake Terminal Railroad Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
Claim No. CD-11-76 - This time claim is instituted in behalf of
Car Repairman - Welder W. Sajdoh,
#1+55,
who claims he was deprived
of an opportunity to work overtime as a welder on June 30, July 1,
and 2, 1976, due to Car Repairman-Craneman H. Messer being used as
a welder on those dates on the
3
P.M. to 11 P. M, shift. Rule 16 (1)
of the controlling agreement plainly states: "Any Car Shop employee
may hold only one bid job at any one time." Mr. Messer did, in effect,
hold two bid jobs on the dates noted above. Mr. Sajdoh claims, as
penalty for the instant violation, twelve hours pay at the welder's
rate for-each of the dates noted above, in addition to all other
earnings.
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.
Patties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.
Claimant is a Car Repairman-Welder assigned to 7:00 A.M. to
3:00 P. M.
shift. On the dates in question on the
3:00
P.M. to 11:00 P. M., shift,
Carrier utilized Car Repairman-Crane Car Operator H. Messer to perform
certain welding work during his regular assigned tour of duty. Claims
were presented in behalf of Claimant fox twelve (12) hours' pay on each
date alleging a violation of Rule 16(1) of the schedule agreement.
Rule 16(1) provides that:
"Any car shop employee may hold only one bid job at any
one time."
-
-ir,r-
Form 1 Award No. 71+26
Page 2 Docket No. 7357
2-LT-USWA-'77
The contention advanced by Petitioner is that when the Car RepairmanCrane Operator performed welding work, he, in effect, held two (2)
jobs
which violated Rule 16(1); and that the use of Car Repairman-Crane Car
Operator Messer to perform welding work caused a crossing of craft lines
which Carrier has not shown that they have a right to do. Carrier on the
other hand argues that Rule 16(1) applies only to jobs which are bulletined
and bid off; and that in this case, Car Repairman-Crane Car Operator Messer
had only one 1 bid
job.
We find that Rule 16(1) is clear and unambiguous, and was not violated
since H. Messer held only one (1) bid
job,
namely, the
job
of Car Repairma.nCrane Car Operator.
Furthermore, Rule 2(b) of the Agreement reads as follows:
"RULE 2 - Rates of Pay
(b) If an employee is temporarily transferred to a higher
rated
job,
he shall receive the higher rate while working on
such
job,
but if temporarily transferred to a lower rated
job,
his regula,r.rate shall not b e reduced.
When an employee is required to work on a
job
with a rate
higher than his regular rate, he shall receive the higher
rate for the entire day, regardless of the number of hours
worked on that
job.
This rule clearly and unambiguously pexmits the temporary transfer of
employes to other
jobs
for an entire day or a portion of a day, and provides
for the compensation to be paid to employees temporarily so transferred.
This is exactly what was involved here. Such a temporary transfer clearly
does not result in an employee holding two (2) bid
jobs.
Rule 2(b) clearly
evidences this fact by its very language, whereby it refers to the
jobs
to which temporarily transferred as "higher rated" or "lower rated", and
to the only job the employee actually holds as his "regular rate".
Our review of the record in this case leads us to the conclusion that
Rule 16(1) was not violated. The burden in this case is not on the Carrier
to show that its action was authorized by some provision of the Agreement.
Rather, petitioner has the burden to show that the action as taken somehow
violated some part of the Rules Agreement. No such evidence has been
brought forth in this case. We hold that Carrier did not violate Rule
16(1) in this instance and the claim must be denied.
Form 1
Page
3
Award No.
7+26
Docket No.
7357
2-LT-USWA-'77
AWARD
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD
ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By
Order of Second
Division
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
rie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at hicago, Illinois, this 9th day of December, 1977.
. _ -r ,