Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 9181
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 8698-T
2-C&NW-CM-'82
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Joseph A. Sickles when award was rendered.
( Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the United States and Canada
Parties to Dispute:
( Chicago and North Western Transportation Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. Carman G. G. Gubbels, Council Bluffs, Iowa, was denied his
contractual rights when the Carrier failed to call him for wrecker
work and allowed Foreman L. A. Wilwerding to perform carmen's work
at derailment at Dennison, Iowa on October 19, 1978.
2. That the Chicago and North Western Trrnsportation Company be ordered
to compensate Carman G. G. Gubbels six and one-half (6~) hours pay
at the overtime rate plus twenty-five (25) cents premium pay.
Findings:
The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all
the evidence, finds that:
The carrier or carriers gnd 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 to appearance at hearing thereon.
On claim date, the Assistant Foreman attempted to call certain employees
for overtime regarding a derailment. He received no response which the Employees attribute
to the fact that the three (3) men called had just been released from work and did not
have sufficient time to get home. In any event, instead of making additional calls,
he proceeded to the site of the derailment, and at that site he performed work
which the Employees claim was improper; such as "...setting blocks, setting outriggers,
and hooking cables."
On the property, Carrier admitted that there were a minimum of calls made but
stated that because "...only one wheel ...was derailed (he) departed for the derailment." Further, it was asserted that two trucks and two carmen were sufficient to
rerail one wheel and any work performed by the Foreman was "...strictly instructional...
as two (2) carmen were sufficient to rerail one wheel of a freight car."
The Organization submitted certain documents executed by the Employees who were
at the scene which deny any type of instructional or Supervisory activity by the Foreman.
Although the submissions to this Board seek to broaden the scope of our
inquiry, the basic factual assertions and contentions set forth above were the ones
under review on the property and thus, they frame our issue.
Form 1
Page 2
Award No. 9181
Docket No. 8698-T
2 - C&NW- CM-' 8 2
The clear implication of the January 2, 1979 denial is that the Foreman
knew, before he proceeded to the derailment site, that only one wheel was derailed;
he still attempted to call additional employees. That factor, plus the unrebutted
evidence of the type of work performed lead us to conclude that the claim is valid.
A W A R D
Claim sustained.
Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
By ' ~L·-t5: J
o marie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this, 22nd day of July, 1982.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division