Form 1
-Parties to DirpE112L
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJfSTN1EN'r BOARD
SECOTdD DIVISION
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Abraharn Weirs when award was rendered.
Award No.
7476
Docket 110.
7304
2-CRi&P-CM-
t
78
System Federation No.
6,
Railway Employes'
Department, A, f. of L.
(Carmen)
Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad Company
(William Iii. Gibbons, Trustee)
(1.) That under the current Agreen?.ent the Carrier
improperly
assigned
other than a Carman Helper to operate a boom tyre Crane in the
Car Depu:.-tment at :Ln,~i~ex Grove, Minnesota, August 18,
1975.
(2) That accordingl-y, the Carrier be ordered to compensate Caman
Helper Ronald George, eight ( ~~) ,ours pair at the applicable rate
for August
18, 1975
and all dates subsequent.
The Second Division of the Adjius~Li.,icnt Board, upon the whole record and
a:Ll the evidence, winds that:
mho carrier or carrier°s and the emyloye or c:rnPl;,yes involved in this
dispute are .respectively carrier and er-_ploye -~iit:iin the meaning of the
Railway Labor Act as approved June 21,
1934.
This Division ox" the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute
involved herein.
Fatties to said dispute ;rained right of appearance at hearing thereon.
The claim before us for adjudication is that the Carrier, on August
18,
1975
and subsequently thereafter, improperly assigned other that; a Caxzren
Helper to operate a boom-type crane after having furloughed the only Caxxn:wn
Helper at the location of the dispute.
In support- of the claim, Petitioner cited Rule
48
of the Agreement,
which reads in pertinent part as follous:
"Portable cranes ... iaiL be operated by helpers of the craft
perform-ing the work in accordance with the classification
of work rules in this a,greeiremt ...." (underlining added)
Foam 1 Award ZVTo.
7476
Page 2 Docket No.
730I+
2-CRI&P-CM-'
78
Petitioner holds that Rule I+8 is not permissive but mandatory; that the
work of operating cranes described in the Rule is reserved exclusively to
helpers by contractual guarantee; and, therefore, the faxlough of the only
Carman Helper at the particular site and the use of Carmen to operate the
crane violates Rule SIB.
Petitioner also cites Awards
3I+05
and
x+185,
involving the same parties,
in support of its position.
Carrier, on the other hand, maintains that Rule
48
does not void its
right to furlough ox abolish the helper positions as part of a reduction in
force and to reassign the crane oper at.ons to the remaining caxmen. This is
consistent, Carrier insists, with the principle that when craft helpers axe
not available or not employed, the journeyman mechanic (car^;nan) may perfoz-.q
all the woxl> within his craft as described in the paxticula:- Classification
of Work Rule.
Caxrie3° also holds that _'lwards
305
and
41.85,
cited by Petitioner, apply
to different fact situations and, therefore, axe inapplicable to this ca.s.e.
Claimant is a Caiman Helper and wa.s
assigned.
to the position of Crane
Operator until that posit ion was ~:ao'1.-Lshed and he was furloughed effective
Au~nzst
15, 197>.
Subsecluer~t to thL.t date ca.rmen were assigned to operate the
crane. A continuing claim eras filed in behalf of the Carman Helper (t.anald
George) beginning P:IOnday, August 18,
1975.
In Awards
3+05
and
4185,
involving the same parties, this Division found
that Rule
48
gives helpers of the craft involved the exclusive contractual
right to operate the subject cranes, stating, in the latter case:
"If the Classification of V~oxk IZu.1es, viz, Rules 1-10 (Ca,rmen -
Classification of Tv;'axk) and 17.2 (Caxmen Helpers - Classification
of Work) of the controlling agreeammnt Were all that were involved
then Carrier's position i.:i~,ht well be supported by our former
avaxds but Rule I+8 gives helpers of the craft involved the
exclusive contractual right to operate the subject cranes."
We concur with tl.1e above finding and we will abide by the authority of
these
prior
awards involving the same parties. Claire 1 ~rill be sustained.
Carrier, for the first time before this Board, questions the propriety
of the continuous nature of Part 2 of the claim.
Since that contention was not a matter of dispute in the handling on
the property it will not be considered here. Part 2 of the claim will be
sustained. Earnit~gs in other erplovment during tine period shall be deducted.
Form 1
Page
3
Clams sustained.
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Rail road Adjustment Board
A W A R D
Award No
. 7176
Docket No.
730T+
2-CRI&P-CM-'
78
NATIQVIiL RAILROAD ADJUSTT~1INT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
y _~.~ .. ..c,a, ._ .y._. ~:r- `. , ~°:,...
~o,
E~n.axie Brascrl - I::Lminis~cxative ~~s sis tar~b
Dated Chicago, Illinois, this
24th day of February,
1978.