Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 9136
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 9032
2-MP-CM-'82
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Rodney E. Dennis when award was rendered.
Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the United States
Parties to Dispute: ~ and Canada
(
( Missouri Pacific Railroad Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
I. That the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company violated Rule
8
of the
controlling Agreement May 30, 1979 teen they used Cayman J. E. Sultzer
to stencil reporting marks on MP 786271 and 786421 at Barton Street
Shop, St. Louis, Missouri.
2. That the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company be ordered to compensate
Painter G. M. Garza in the amount of eight (8) hours at the straight
time rate for their violation of May 30, 1979.
Findings
The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole recur 3 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.
Claimant G. M. Garza is a Painter employed in Carrier's Barton Street Shop:;
in St. Louis, Missouri. His rest days are Wednesday and Thursday. On May 30,
1979, Carrier directed Cayman J. E. Sultzer to stencil reporting marks on Missouri
Pacific cars. Sultzer did not hold a Painter's job. Claimant alleges that
painting work is work generally performed by Painters and that, as such, he should
have been called to do the stenciling. The work should not have been given to a
Cayman.
Carrier disputes Claimant's position and argues that where painting must
be done, a regularly assigned Cayman who is not regularly assigned as a Painter
can do such work if a regularly assigned Painter is not on duty. There is no
requirement in the Schedule Agreement for the carrier to call a Painter from the:
overtime list in such a situation. Carrier further argues that in Award No.
8608 involving this Carrier and this Organization and an identical issue,
Referee Marx denied the claim. The Board should do the same in this instance.
This Board as Carrier points out, has decided an identical issue in Award
No. 8608, wherein it denied the claim. Our reasoning in that case applies
equally as well to this case. The issue has been settled.
Form 1
Page 2
A W A R D
Claim denied.
Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
By
Award No. 9136
Docket No.
9032
2-MP-CM-'82
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
os marie Bsasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 16th day of June, 1982.