F orm 1 TLATIO1,T.as RAILROAD ADS-ITSTI~:= BOARD Award Ho.
7444
SECOTTD DIVISION Docket iTo. 721+6
2-T-1P-sM-
t
78
The Second Division consisted. of the regular members and in
addition Referee David F. Twomey when award was rendered.
( Sheet Metal Workers' International
( Association
Parties to Dispute:
(
( Missouri Pacific Railroad Company
Dispute: Claim of En-
ployes:
1. That the Missouri Facific Railroad Company violated the controlling
agreement, particularly Rules 26(a),
?+5
and
97
at Kansas City,
Missouri on Jarnaaxy
8, 1975,
when Foreman Monaco assigned himself
the duties of a Sheet Metal Worker Helper in applying cap screws
to wye pipe connection on Engine
18-7.
2. That accordingly the Mlissouxi Pacific Railroad Company be ordered
to compensate Sheet Metal ;~7orkex C . E. Straw four (T+) hours at the
punitive rate of pay for such violation.
Findings
The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and
all the evidence, finds that:
The carrier ox carriers and the employs ox employes involved in this
dispute are respectively carrier and employs 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.
Fatties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.
On Janua~T 8,
1975,
Unit
_'1847
was in Carrier's diesel facility at
Kansas City, T:~issour-i fox inspection, repairs and improvements of the unit.
As part of this process, it was necessary to determine the origin of a water
leak in the unit. It was thrnzglit that the source of the leak was the "Y"
connection. Sheet Metal Worker Deveney was assigned to the unit to -repair
this leak.
In the Organisation's claim letter dated January
8, 1975,
it =s stated
that
"A.ftex i nv estigati ng the leak, Mr. DPVeney found the
job to be as such to require help and assistance to
line up gas'Kets and cap SCreTPS, and at the sar?e ti---e
to hold this
'it
connection in proper position while
Form 1 Award No. 7I*4+
Page 2 Docket No. 72I+6
r_
2 _Mp_SM-178
"replacing the cap screws. Mr. Deveney requested
Mx. Monaco, the ramp foreman, to send him some help
until this job was at least partially completed, and
the cap screws put in place, however Mr. Monaco, the
Ramp Foreman, proceeded to help Mr. Deveney hi~self
personally, and started cap screws while Mr. Deveney
held the 'Y' connection in place. i4r. Deveney also
states that he is in doubt as to the proper applica
tion of one of the cap screws, however, Mr. Deveney
told the Sheet Metal Workers Local Chairman that the
'YI
connection did not, and was not leaking at the
time of testing."
The Letter of claim further stated:
"On this date the Sheet Metal Workers Craft was particularly short on employees in the Diesel Shop, as
one was assigned to transferring fuel oil on the Oil
Spur track, and another eras assigned to the Rip Track
repair area to test Acetylene equipment and hoses."
By letter dated February
3,
1975, the Carrier's I~iastex Mechanic responded
in part:
"Investigation developed Deveney had spent almost 2
hours attempting to put the wye connection up.
Foreman Monaco performed the work in the presence of
Deveney as provided under Rule 26(a). We do not
ordinarily assign two Sheetmetal Gvoxkers to put up
wye connections."
On a letter dated March 25, 1975, the Carrier's Mechanical Superintendent
stated in part:
"Investigation of this claim developed that Sheet
Metal Worker Deveney was assigned the task of
application and connecting the Wye connection on
Unit 18-7 while under general repairs in the Diesel
facility, after Mx. Deveney had spent almost two hours
in attempting to connect up the Wye, Foreman Monaco
did assist him. I believe that this complies with
Rule 2 a of the current agree.~^lent." (Emphasis added)
The Chief Mechanical Officer of the Carrier by letter dated clay 20, 1975,
stated in part "It is understood that Foreman Monaco assisted Sheet Metal
Worker Deveney in putting
up wyre
connection
...."
The ueneial Chai man
stated in his letter of July 17, 1975, that "'He cannot agree that this was a
one-man job as you stated in your letter that Foxe_man Monaco did nel*0 the
Sheet Metal Worker
...."
Form 1
Page
3
Award 110
. 7444
Docket
ujo.
72
2-~.-rp-SM-
f
78
The Carrier's Exhibit °'i" was not presented to the Organization on the
property, and is thus not properly before this Board.
It is clear beyond doubt that the work in question is Sheet Metal
Workers' work. Rule 26(a) of the Agreement provides "none but mechanics ox
apprentices regularly employed as such shall do mechanic's work" and it also
provides that: "This rule does not prohibit foremen in the exercise of their
duties to perform work". The question before us then is whether Foreman
Monaco performed the work in question in the exercise of his supervisory
duties to demonstrate the proper method ox technique fox the installation
of the "Y" connection or did he go beyond his supervisory duties and actually
assume the role of a mechanic doing mechanic's work in violation of Rule 26(a).
We find that the evidence before us requires us to find that the work
performed by Foreman Monaco was in violation of Rule
26(a).
There is evidence
in the record, which was not denied, that there was a shortage of Sheet
Metal Workers on the date in question. It is also not denied that Sheet
Metal Worker Deveney requested help until the cap screws were put in place,
and that the Foreman
himself
proceeded to help Deveney by starting the cap
screws while Deveney held the "Y" connection in place. The Carrier states that
"Ordinarily" and "nomally"it is a one man job. It is clear beyond question
that this specific job on January
8, 175
was, in mart, a tyro person job, fox
r
oxeman -Monaco pexfox^_red the function of starting the cap screws while Sheet
Metal Worker Deveney performed the ±~zncti on of holding the "Y" connection in
dace. The Faxeman's role clearly was not to demonstrate ox inst:cract ;-fir.
Deveney how the Job was to be properly performed by one person. We .find
from the fact that the two persons simultaneously and conjunctively performed
the job in question that the Carrier's assertion that the entirety of the
work performed by the Foreman was by way of instruction and demonstration
must be rejected.
We shall sustain this claim at the pro-rata rate.
A ;·1 A R D
Cla:L-.q sustained as per Findings.
Attest: E:recutive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
N.A TI OTNAZ RP I·LROAD ADJUS T?,=rI' BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Rosemarie B rasch - i~cami:zist?°ative Assistant
Dated
:3.t
C:11CaJ0,
TillT10-I
s,
t'i S
24'til day of ac.f?'U.aY'f, 1j70.
,"Wo,