Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No.
7906
SECOND DIVISION Docket No.
7765-T
2-SLSF-FO-'79
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee George S. Roukis when award was rendered.
( System Federation No. 22, Railway Employes'
( Department, A. F, of L. - C. I. 0.
Parties to Dispute: ( (Firemen & Oilers)
(
( St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That the Carrier violated the Agreement when on January 26, 27,
28,
29, 30, 31, February
16, 17, 18
and
19, 19'l7,
it assigned, or
otherwise permitted, a Maintenance of Way Employe to operate a
Hoist Machine for the purpose of unloading and laying track
panels and switching cars in and out of the track panel yard at
the old west shop, Springfield, Missouri.
2. That accordingly, the St. Louis-San Francisco compensate Hoist
Operator W. D. Murphy at his applicable Hoist Operator's rate
of pay for an equal number of man hours as were expended by the
Maintenance of Way Employee in performing the work referred to
in Part (1) of this claim.
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.
Our review of the record indicates that while the Firemen and Oilers
employes have jurisdiction over the Brown Hoist Machine, the operation of
the American S.F. No.
918
was not specifically reserved to them and thus
properly used by the Maintenance of Way Employees.
The type of work performed was Track Department work and under the
supervision of the Division Engineer.
Form 1 Award No. 79o6
page 2 Docket No. 7765-T
2-SLSF-FO-179
If a Brown Hoist machine were used to perform this works our conclusion
would probably be different. But we cannot read into the Maintenance of
Way Agreement an exclusion for another type of machine despite its functional
similarity,
Admittedly, the record shows that claimants performed similar task
assignments in the past, but the work in question did not exclusively
accrue to them. It has been performed by others as well.
We recognize the gray areas that oftentimes exist in contested work
assignments., but the evidence of record supports our finding of non-exclusivity.
Accordingly, we are compelled to deny this claim.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest; Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
By
R semarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago Illinois, this 26th day of April, 1979.