Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUST='I' BOARD Award No. 8389
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 817+
2-CR-MA-'80
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Kay McMurray when award was rendered;



Parties to Dispute;




Dispute: Claim of Employes:





Findings:

The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and a7!1 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.








Form 1 Award No, 8389
I ~,L;c: ? Docket No. 817L+
2-Cl?-MA-' 80
"At i,ho time 1_n question, Management was in the process of
relocating the ;journal box work from the Juniata Welding
Shop to the Juniata Machine Shop.
On the dates for which claim is .presented, Claimant Malone
performed his bulletined assignment at the Juniata Welding
Shop for reason the facilities being installed at the Juniata
Machine Shop were not completed to handle the journal box work.
Claim was presented to the General Foreman on November 8, 1977,
and denied on November 17; progressed to the Manager - Labor
Relations on December 8; discussed at meeting held on
December 19; and denied January 4, 1978. Joint Submission
was requested by the Local Chairman on January 18, 1978.
Case No. L-7-359(M), File No. 237-A, is being held in abeyance
for farther discussion pending decision in this case.
POSITION OF EMPLOYEES:
Claimant W. L. Malone was awarded a position as a Machinist on
second shift in the Juniata Machine Shop Department 380 Job no.
717 A effective October 25, 1977. This job was advertised on
Bulletin x+81 and was posted 10/12/77.
Management was in the process of relocating the Journal Box
work from the Juniata Welding Shop Department 360 to the
Juniata Machine Shop Department 380. This is also a violation
of the Controlling Agreement, because the Journal Box work is
in the E&M Pool, and any work in the E&;M Pool is to be performed
in the E&M Building only, as stated in the Controlling Agreement
Rule 5-F-4(b ),
On the date for which the claim is presented, claimant Malone
was at the instance of Management moved off his regular Bulletin
Position job no, 717-A Bulletin x+81 in the Juniata Machine Shop,
and required to perform his regular assignment at a Location
other than that of his regular assignment for (8) hours on each
of the following dates: 10/27/77, 10/28/77, 10/31/77, 11/1/77,
11/2/77, 11/3/77, and 11/4/77. This is a direct violation of
the Controlling Agreement, especially Rule 2-A-1 (e)o
We contend Management should never have readvertised Job 717-A
until the facilities in Department 380 was completed.
POSITION OF CORPORATION:
It is an AGREED-UPON FACT in this caste that:
1. On the dates for which claim is presented, Management
was in the process of relocating the journal ox word
Form 1 Page 3

Award No. 8389
Docket No. 817+
2 -CR-MA-' 80

2.

"from the Juniata Welding ahoy to the Juniata Machine ;~ho~, ~ C1~;mphasi s added.

On the dates for which claim is presented, Claimant Malone performed his bulletined assignment at the Juniata Welding Shop for reason the facilities being installed at the Juniata Machine Shop were not completed to ha ndle the journal box work. Emphasis added.

The Memorandum of 'Understanding made on February 10, 1965, pertaining to the application of the last paragraph of Rule 2-A-1 (e), provides that the penalty payment in question shall not be applicable in circumstances where the movement from one position to another is necessitated by emergencies, such as was present in the instant case where it was not possible for the Claimant to perform his bulletined assignment at ti.--e Juniata Machine Shop."

It should be noted that the second sentence of paragraph two of the employee's position is not germane to the claim before this Board.

In the case before us it is apparent that claimant was not inconvenienced by the action of the Carrier. He simply fulfilled the work of his new bid at his old location due to the fact that the new location was not ready to function_ The only movement was on paper. Mr. Malone was awarded a bid at a new location which had not yet been effectuated because the location was not ready,

It may be true, as the organization contends, that the job should not have been bid until the facilities were carnpleted in order to avoid the payment of penalty. However, same lead time is necessary in bidding new positions and it seems improper to penalize the Carrier for following an orderly and necessary .process.

In the case at bar while there may have been

literal language of the contract, Claimant was not

any manner. On the basis of this record he is not

A W A R D

Claim denied.

Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board

BY



Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 25th day of June, 1980.

a technical violation of the

t moved or inconvenienced in

t entitled to penalty pay.

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

By Order of Second Division