Foam 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award Pdo.
7+90
SECOND DIVISION Docket No.
7413-I
2-sgr-I-
` 78
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Theodore H. O'Brien when award was rendered.
Terrence H. Balanesi
(
Parties to Dispute:
(
( Southern Pacific Transportation Company
Dispute: Claim of Imployes:
It is my contention neither the Southern Pacific Transportation
Company nor the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace
Workers, at anytime to the present, had the evidence of facts to stop
a simple inter-company transfer of a Journeyman Arachinist (recognized
as such by Local Lodge
X1537
of the above mentioned union) from the
Running Maintenance Plant in Houston, Texas to the Heavy Maintenance
Plant in Sacramento, California. To further damage their positions,
the position of Journeyman I~°_achini st I held at Houston, Texas, was
revoked by the above mentioned union officials and 1 ~ter ratified
by the Labor Relations Department of the above mentioned carrier,
thus placing me in the position of Machinist Apprentice at the Heavy
Maintenance Plant in Sacramento.
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.
The Claimant was employed by the Carrier as a machinist apprentice
holding a seniority date of I:~ay
h, 1976.
The facts giving rise to the
instant claim are as follow,: By letter dated February 1,
1977,
claimant
notified Carrier that he T.ras filing an ex pane submission to this Division
based on his contention that his transfer from Houston on Carrier's T&L
Lines to Sacramento an Carrier's Pacific Lines was "unorthodox". It is
the Claimant's contention that he was working as a journeyman machinist at
Houston and was forced to transfer to Saorwmento as a machinist apprentice.
It is clear from an examination of the record before us that the
Petitioner did not handle the claim on tii.e property as is required by Section
Form 1
Page
2
Award No.
7-90
Docket No.
7+13-I
2-spr-I-t78
3,
First (i) of the Railway Labor Act, nor did the Claimant handle his
grievance as required by Rule
38
of the Agreement between the parties.
In Second Division Award
7088,
we held:
"It is clear beyond question that the Claim the Petitioner
is attempting to assert before this Board was not handled
on the property of the Carrier in accordance with Rule 28 of
the current agreement of the parties and as required by
Section
3,
First (i) of the Railway Labor Act. Therefore,
the claim is barred from consideration by this Division
and must be dismissed. See the followinSecond Division
Awards:
7026, 6992, 687+, 6829, 6810, 6555, 6520, 6506,
6496
and
6484. "
Since it is clear that the Claimant did not handle his claim in accordance
with the grievance machinery established by the Agreement we must dismiss
the claim in its entirety.
Claim dismissed.
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
- mo
emarie Brasch - P~dministrative Assistant
Dated a( Chicago, Illinois this 4th day of
April, 1978.