Foam 1 1~TATIONI-~L RAILROAD ADJUSTIVEiTT BOARD Award No.
744'7
SECOW D177ISION Docket No.
7338
2-C&-o-CM-
T
78
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Herbert L. T~Tarx, J r. when award was rendered.
( System Federation -,\To.
4,
Railway Employes'
( Department, A. F. of L. - C. I 0.
Parties to Dispute: ( (Caxmen)
(
( Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That Caiman Fainter, Thomas Vexnatt, Jr.'s service rights and. rules
of the controlling agreement rave been violated since Nove.'nbex
12,
197+
account being unjustly furloughed while others (Car.ren)
being assigned to Carmen Painter's work in violation of Carman's
Special Rule
154,
Understanding Yegotiated February 9-22,
1922.
2. Accordingly, Caxran Fainter, Thomas Vex°natt Jr. is entitled to be
compensated eight
(8)
hours, five
(5)
days each week at Carmen
Fainter` s applicable straight time rate coz?m:encing ioveniper 12,
197!+
and. continuing until the clai.~-q is satisfactorily disposed of
in its entirety.
Findings:
The Second Division of the Adjustment Doaxd, upon the whole record and
all the evidence, finds that:
The carrier ox carriers and the employe ox employes involved in this
dispute axe respectively carrier and ennplaye within the meaning of the
Railway Labor Act as approved June 21,
193+.
This Division of the Adjustment Foard has j-t3.risdiction over the dispute
involved herein.
Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at nearing thereon.
The Claimant, Caiman Fainter Thomas Vexnatt, jr., was furloughed
November
12, 197,
in a general force reduction at the Carrier's facility
at 3arboursville, ',,I-St ~;irginia. r_t the ti.ue of his furlough, ~Ternatt was
the only Caiman Fainter at the Barboursville facility.
There is no dis ^pu.te that sore pain ti ng Tsor'~, both by b vash and s;.,r wy ,
was performed at intervals foLl.oz,-ing the ~laimart`s :tarlough. Provisions
for the perfox:~ance of such inte=ittent work usually belonging to a s_~ecific
craft are found i^ R~ule 32 (c) ~r~ich reads in Qavt:
Form 1
Page
2
Award "To.
7447
Docket ~To.
7338
2-Coo-cry- ~ 78
Effective ~Tove:nber 1,
196+
-- at points where there
is not sufficient work to justify employing a mechanic
of each craft, the mechanic or mechanics employed at such
points will so far as they axe capable of doing so,
perform the work of any craft not having a mechanic
employed at that point..."
The Organization did not present evidence to show that there f,-as
sufficient work to require the Carrier to :keep a Caiman Painter employed nor
that Rule
32
(c) should not be applied to permit Cayman to perform the
limited and intermittent amount of work required.
The Organization attempts to distinguish, however, between painting by
brush and by spray, referring to an Understanding negotiated February
9-22,
1922,
interpreting Rule
154
(Carmen's Classification of Work Rule). The
Understanding states:
"Paint spraying machines will be operated by painters unless
this practice is changed by some ruling or interpretation
from the Labor Board."
This is clearly a reservation of paint spraying to Painters -- assuming
Painters are part of the working force. The Understanding must yield, however, to the broader concept of Rule
32
(c), just as do other classification y"
of work rules, however explic_t in their terms.
A
Trt
A R D
Claim denied.
_"_ttest:
Executive
Secretary
Tatior_al Railroad Adjustment Roard
7
HATI011AL RAILROAD ADS'-USmTETvT 3CARD
3y Order of Second Division
~semari a Brasch - AcLm`.nistrati-ve !assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, thin
24th
day of January,
1978.