F orm 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No.
8613
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 8295-T
2-WP-CM-'81
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Kay McMurray when award was rendered.
( Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the United States
Parties to Dispute: ( and Canada
(
( Western Pacific Railroad Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That the Western Pacific Railroad Company violated the controlling
Agreement and especially Rule 115 (a) and Rule 30 (a) of the September 25,
1964
Agreement, Article III when Car Foreman B. L. Coggins performed
carmen's work.
2. That this claim was submitted on October
6, 1977.
_ That Carman J. Chrisman was available, capable, and willing to perform
the work that Car Foreman Coggins performed in creating this claim.
Therefore, the above mentioned carman should be compensated in the amount
of four (4) hours at the straight time rate.
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.
On September
30, 1977
a damaged freight car was lifted off a flat car and
placed on trucks by car forces from the Carrier's Oroville Yard. The crew which
accomplished the operation consisted of a Car Foreman and two Carmen. Thereafter,
the instant claim was filed. The Organization maintains that Rules 30 and 117 of
the Agreement and Article III of the September 25,
1964
Agreement were violated
because the foreman performed the carmen's work in hooking and unhooking cables,
using tools to remove support cables and clamps, and driving the Krane Kar to move
the trucks.
On the other hand, the Foreman and the Carrier emphatically deny that any such
work was performed. They maintain that the work which was performed by the foreman
was instructive and supezvisory in nature and did not encompass the labor described
in the complaint. In fact, they maintain that the n,7o carne n on the crew actually
performed the work for which claim was filed. The Grganization relies on claimant's
statement plus two letters from other carmen to buttress its claim that the foreman
Form 1
Page 2
Award No. 8613
Docket No.
8295-T
2-WP-CM-'81
performed such work. One of the letters was judgmental in character and contained
no information regarding the work performed. The other letter was judgmental in
character but did end with a "such as" statement regarding work the signator
believed would be carman's work. The notes do not contain the specificity necessary
to prove that any such work was actually accomplished.
From the foregoing and the entire record this Board determines that the
Organization simply did not prove that the work outlined in the complaint was
actually performed. There is, therefore, no basis for the remedy sought.
A WAR D
Claim dismissed for lack of justiciable issue.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
,o~emarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day of January,
1981.