Foam 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 77+3
SECOND DIVISION Docket No.
7526-T
2-MP-CM-'78
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee George S. Roukis when award was rendered.
( System Federation No. 2, Railway Employes'
( Department, A. F. of L. - C. I. 0.
Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)
( Missouri Pacific Railroad Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company violated the Agreement
of January 12, 1976, specifically Article VI when they abolished
jobs of Claimants A. G. Soto, L. S. Garcia, and L. T. Reyna and
denied them the right to perform work contracted to the Carman
Craft exclusively.
2. That, accordingly, the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company be
ordered to compensate Claimants A. G. Soto, L. S. Garcia, and L. f.
Reyna in the amount of eight
(8)
hours at the pro rata rate each
for five
(5)
days per week beginning on March 15, 1976 and
continuing until violation is corrected.
3·
That the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company be required to restore
the three (3) Car Inspectors jobs abolished in September,
197+
at Freeport, Texas in line with Article VI of the January 12,
1976 Agreement.
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.
Claimants allege Carrier violated Article VI of the January 12,
1976
Agreement when their jobs were abolished and not restored within the framework
of Article VI.
Carrier's defense of the claim is based first on the allegation that the
claim was not filed within the proper time limits, and secondly that no
violation of the Agreement occurred.
Foam 1
Page 2
Award No.
77+3
Docket No.
7526-T
2-MP-CM-'78
On the time limit issue it should be noted that Article VI of the
December
4,
1975 Agreement (cited as the January 12,
1976
Agreement)
became effective January 12, 1975. Section (g) of Article VI reads:
"(g) This Article shall become effective 60 days after
the effective date of this Agreement."
Carrier could not be required to comply with any ".restoration of work"
provision of Article VI until that provision of the Agreement became effective
i.e., March 1?_, 1976, No dispute could arise under Article VI until it
became effective. The instant claim was initially instituted by letter dated
April 5, 1976, well within the time limit provisions of Article V of the
August 21, 195+ Agreement. Carrier's defense on that basis cannot be upheld_
On the issue of Carrier being in violation of Article VI of the
aforementioned agreement, the Employes have failed to submit sufficient
evidence that the jobs abolished were in a departure yard where trains depart
ox that the work in question otherwise meets the criteria set forth in
Article V of the
September 25, 1964 Agreement as amended.
The claim is dismissed fox lack of evidence.
A W A R D
Claim dismissed.
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
By ~
;s
~osema,rie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Date ~d at Chicago, Illinois,, this
29th day of November, 1978.