Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No.
SECOND DIVISION Docket No.
85
8-T
2-S00-CM-'82
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee George E. Larney when award was rendered.
( Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the United States
Parties to Dispute: and Canada
Soo Line Railroad Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. Carmen G. W. Newhorter, J. A. Hein and P. E. Migas, Rhinelander, Wis. are
claiming a total of
19
hours at time and one-half at. cA=m's rate of
pay to be divided equally, because the Soo Line R.R. Co. violated Rules
94--28,
Par. 1 and Rules
11--27--94
of Shop Craft Agreement, on
Dec.
9, 1977.
2.
Claim of
3
hour overtime is for violation of Rules
94
and
28,
Par. 1,
when Foreman, P. W. Denis assisted one carman in the changing of wheels
on G. N.
76889.
3.
Claim of sixteen (16) hours overtime is for violation of Rules
11--27---94,
when Soo Line R.R. proceeded to have two carmen from Stevens Point, Wis.
to come from one point to work at another point at Rhinelander, Wis.
which is in violation of Point Seniority, to repair cars A.T.S.F.
47507,
C.N.
576401
and G.N.
6750,
all of which consisted of changing
wheels.
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.
The record reflects that on date of December
8, 1977,
two of the three
Claimants, namely G. W. Newhorter and P. E. Migas, were dispatched to Medford,
Wisconsin to rerail two locomotives. Upon their return to Rhinelander at
3:30
A.M., December
9, 1977,
they left a note for the foreman, advising they
were laying off account to get some rest and that they would be reporting to work
at 10:00 AM, rather than at their starting ti-me of
7:30
A.M. The third Claimant,
J. A. Hein reported for work at the regular starting time of
7:30
A.M.
Form
1
Page 2
Award No.9004
Docket No.8588-T
2-S00-CM-'82
According to Carrier, on December
9,
1977 there were four cars awaiting
repairs, specifically changing of wheels and that these repairs needed to be
completed expeditiously. As a result, a Carrier foreman assisted Carman J. A.
Hein in changing the wheels on one of the cars. At the same time Carrier summoned
two Carmen from Stevens Point, Wisconsin, a separate seniority district from
that of Rhinelander to assist in the repairs of the other three
(3)
cars.
These two (2) Carmen worked on changing wheels and together put in a total of
sixteen (16) hours work.
The Organization alleges Carrier committed two distinct violations of the
Controlling Agreement bearing effective date of January 1,
1954,
the first by
permitting one of its foreman to engage in Carmen's work, and the second, by
calling in two Carmen from another seniority district to perform the work of
changing wheels.
Upon a close and careful review of the entire record, it is the judgment
of this Board that the Organization's claim regarding the foreman working must be
denied on the basis it was unable to meet its bruden of proof by its failure to
specify the exact duties performed
by the foreman and too, to demonstrate these
duties were exclusively those reserved to Carmen. As to the second part of the
instant claim, the Carrier was not persuasive in its argument that the repairs
were of an emergency nature requiring immediate attention and therefore in turn
requiring the assistance of two Carmen from another seniority district. Carrier
was informed by Carmen Newhorter and Migas that they would be reporting to work
2k hours into their tour of duty. Thus, Carrier could have deferred the repairs
on the remaining three
(3)
cars until the time of their arrival. We find, based
on the circumstances of the instant case, that Claimants are entitled to pay at
the pro rata rate for a total of eleven (11) hours rather than the sixteen (16)
hours claimed. We arrived at this total by subtracting the first 2k hours each
Claimant was unavailable during his tour of duty on December
9, 1977.
A W A R D
Claim sustained in part as per Findings. Carrier is directed to pay
Claimants eleven (11) hours of pay at the then prevailing pro rata rate.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
~-).
- , - k4
BY
~emarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Datedkat Chicago, Illinois, this 24th day of Maxch,1982.