Form 1 NATTOIRL RA=0AD t,-D,7JTi·IEEl'T BOr"iIID A'v,-ard No. 811-6
 SECOM DIVISION Dochet No. 8057
 2-CSITH-CM- t 79



Parties to Dismite: ( (Carmen)

Dispute: Claim of E:nployes:














        Agreement.


Findin
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 carri er and eir,plo;re within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1 931!.

 This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

    Part:! es to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.


The organization contends that carrier violated the collective a;reement (specifically, Rues 16, 21, 2j, a0, 29, 53, '21', and 137, and t~rt-icle No. 7 of the August 21, :1954 a.M;r eement ) irnen it abolished cl aiufant's :job of hi ;n-h wide inspector and a.s-iz°ned identical duties to a r.echanic in charge. Carrier argues that b~:cause of I~:ule 29, na st practice, and because claimant was not qualified to do the work, it acted properly in assigning hi,-:,h wide inspection duties to a mechanic in charge. Thus, it clairs, no contract violation exists.

 Simply stated, the issue in this case is: does claimant have the right to the high ~ride inspector's job at carrier's Butler Facility? From the
 Form 1 Award No. 8146
 Ird,ge 2 Docket No. 805 7
 2-CW,hvl-CM-' 79

 record before us, this Board concludes that he does. The position oras
 designated by the posted job advertisement as Job 02_1--with duties described
 as inspecting and measuring loads i n the Milv~wuk.ee Terminal. The position
 was awarded to claimant on 8, 1977. It ,;as advertised a s a perranent,
 new position.

    On July 29, 1977, carrier abolished the job and shortly thereafter

assigned the high iv-dde in^ nector zsork to the mechan-1_c in charge at Butler.
 By so doing, carrier violated Rule 25, ~rhich state:, in pertinent part: "v.Then
 jobs are abolished (not under a reduction of force) for a period of sill
 months or less, rien affected by such aboli tion v_i. 1- 1 be restored to their
 former positions upon re-a stablisl:ment of jobs."

    Carrier erred by relying on Rule 29 to support its action in this case.

Rule 29 cannot be interpreted to r.ean that mechanics in charge can be
 assigned car11enss duties in train;fa rd.s that enpioy more than dive men. ,''or
 this Board to decide other -%,,-.!,-,e wuzld be to give :Ueani n_g to Rule 2a thc":.t does
 not exist. That decision ,7cvJ_d be il lc(;i cal. F.,u1c 29 was bar.-Wined into `the
 agreement to protect carmen's -v:orh, not to give carrier the license 'Uo assign
 mechanics in charge to ca)mien's duties.
 c1 ant ~° taken of-!'
                                    In its rebutt 1, Carrier clear-1,- at

es that w:l_'n.,.~ t-,~.~ the job "! n Clue- t:1.on bec.--.use he S-Ta s not oualified try do the 0;G. `!,he job w3,s assigned to the mechanic in charge because he did ~~oc,sess the proper qualifications. lit is not- for this Board t0 Judge `G:?e C7U..Lif?.G't?:GiO?1S 03: Claimant to do the wori= :7,s: i:-;ned. It -J_S its 1"=S?wt~?~;~'.Lb'! lit;,', however, to see that e1Giz~lant' s contract rigli is are upheld. _1 -f cl a41-nary' is not dual: ~.'ied to perform the iror'_~, re si:oLLld be proper3y discaua,Lified and the job rebid. Carrier cannot 3,bolish the job and unilaJu-crally reassign the identical work on a non-bid basis.

                      A W A R D


    Claim sustained.


                          NATIOHU RAIIROAD ADJUST?.1Ei`P DOARD

                          By Order of Second Division


Attest: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 By /. `,~e..r ~..·~,~.yt...~;~: ~^ -?~';-'. _'.- ` ~L, ..______
    ~Rosemarie B_asciz - Adrdnistrative l-ssistant


Dated L Chicago, Illinois, this 24th day of October, 1979.