Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No.
7511
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 7115-T
2-DM&IR-CM-`78
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Nicholas H. Zumas when award was rendered.
( System Federation No. 7, Railway Employes'
( Department, A. F. of L. - C. 1.0.
Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)
( Duluth, Missabe & Iron Range Railway Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That Duluth, Missabe and Iron Range Railway Company is in violation
of Rule 80 when on December
3, 1974
the work of cleaning and
removing paint from truck sides of Diesel Engine No. 191,
preparatory to painting, was assigned to employees of the IBF&0
roundhouse laborers at Proctor, Minnesota.
2. That accordingly the Duluth, Missabe and Iron Range Railway
Company be required to compensate Carmen Helpers Douglas Slosson
and Paul Gagne, Proctor, Minnesota, five
(5)
hours each at the
pro rata rate for December
3, 1975.
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,
1934.
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'Organization contends that Rule 80 was violated when roundhouse
laborers were used to wash trucks on a diesel locomotive preparatory to
painting.
Rule 80 provides, in pertinent part:
"Employes regularly assigned to help carmen and apprentices,
employes engaged in washing and scrubbing the inside and
outside of passenger coaches preparatory to painting, removing of
paint on other than passenger cars preparator-y to painting
.. shall be classed as helpers." Underscoring added
Form 1
Page 2
Award No. 7511
Docket'No. 7115-T
2-DM&IR-CM-' 78
A careful review of the record in this dispute compels the conclusion
that the Organization has failed to show by substantive evidence of
probative value, that the roundhouse laborers were using the particular
Oakite cleaning solvent expressly for the .purpose of removing paint on the
trucks preparatory to painting as instructed by Carrier. The fact that some
paint may have chipped during the washing along with grease and grime, was ,
of no consequence. As Carrier points out, Oakite is a brand name that
includes.a number of cleaning solvent products of varying strengths to be
used for a variety of purposes, including washing and paint removing. There
is no showing that the particular Oakite product used on the trucks in
question was intended as a paint remover.
Thus, on the basis of the evidence, the Board finds that the claim
must be denied.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
B;
----'Rd-emare Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 21st day of April, 1978.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division