Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No.
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. ~231g
2-cR-Ew-'83
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Martin F. Scheinman when award was rendered.
( International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
Parties to Dispute:
( Consolidated Rail Corporation
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That at the Wayne Junction Facility the Consolidated Rail Corporation
violated the current agreement when awarding bulletin positions to
apprentice/trainees before mechanics of the craft.
2. That ConRail violated Rule 2, Selection of Position, in awarding
Bulletins 1, 2 and
6.
3.
That the mechanics of the craft who made application be given a
non-written examination prior to the awarding of these positions
as proof of their qualification.
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,
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.
The facts in this case are not in dispute. Carrier by bulletins No. 1, 2
and
6
issued September
19, 1979,
September
19, 1979
and October
17, 1979,
advertised
a total of six Electrician vacancies. All positions advertised were in the
Philadelphia, Pa. area (i.e. either at Carrier's Wayne Junction or Reading
facility).
Linemen, J. Morris, L. B. Walker, J. E. Wright, P. Neary and G. F. Pfeifly
applied for the positions, Linemen Morris, Walker and Wright having applied for
more than one such position.
Carrier, however, awarded the positions to two Electricians - L. Warren
and R. P. Foreman and four trainees - M. J. Burns, T. J. Ralph, J. T. Weston
and G. J. Homick. While Carrier maintains that three electricians and three
trainees were awarded the positions, it appears from the record M. J. Burns,
T. J. Ralph, J. J. Weston and G. J. Homick were all trainees when this dispute
arose.
Form 1 Award No. 9370
Page 2 Docket No. 9215
2 -CR-EW-' 83
The Organization maintains that Carrier violated the Agreement between the
parties dated May I, 1979. Specifically, the Organization argues that Rule No.
2, Selection of Positions, specifically precludes trainees from being awarded
Electrician positions when other members of the bargaining unit apply for them.
This argument is supported, in the Organization's view, by Section IV Single
Implementing Agreement dated March 11,
1876,
which was incorporated into the
May 1, 1979 Schedule Agreement.
Furthermore, the Organization adds that Linemen, who are in the same
craft as Electricians, are permitted to bid on and be granted Electrician
positions pursuant to the letter agreement between the Reading Company (ConRsil':;
predecessor) and the Organization. Accordingly, the Organization asks that
Claimants J. Morris, L, B. Walker, J. E, Wright and G. Pfeifly each be given
non-written .examinatirn s to establish their qualifications and then be awarded
the positions.
The parties here agreed in April
14,
1938 to continue to keep a series of
point rosters of the groups in the Electrical Department. In addition, the
parties also agreed in 1938 to continue to keep a Departmental Roster.
At the time of this dispute, there existed a Departmental Roster listing
sixty-one employes in the department. Trainees in the different classifications
were kept on this list. A roster of thirty-three Electricians, a roster of
twenty-one Lineman First Class, a roster of twenty-seven Lineman Second Class and
a roster of twenty-five Helpers were also kept.
Throughout the handling on the property and at this Board, the Organization
claimed that Carrier's action violated Rules 2-A-1 (a), 2-A-I (c) and 2-A-I
(f). They state:
"2-A-1. (a) When new positions are created or vacancies
occur, the senior employees in the seniority district in
which the position is advertised shall, if sufficient
ability is shown by trial, be given preference in filling
such new positions or vacancies that may be desirable to
them. Where a position involves air brake work, welding,
reflectoscope, high voltage work, magnaflux, radiograph,
a nonwritten examination or test may be required as a
prerequisite to assignment to the position of an employee
who has not previously been qualified on such work by
performance or otherwise; an employee bidding for or
seeking to displace on such a position shall upon
request be promptly given an opportunity to take such
examination or test."
"(c) The provisions of this rule will not be applied to
permit apprentices to bid or apply for advertisied positions until their apprenticeship has been completed, nor
will the provisions of said rule apply to the positions of
apprentices."
Form 1
Page
3
Award No. 9370
Docket No. 9215
2-CR-EW-183
"(f) In the awarding of advertised positions or vacancies
under the provisions of this rule, bids from employees
having seniority in the craft and class in which the
vacancy exists, will be given first consideration, even
if working out of their craft or class."
The crucial Rule is 2-A-1 (f). It gives priority to senior employes, even
those working out of their craft and classification, in the awarding of advertised
positions or vacancies. However, an applicant, in order to have the protections
of 2-A-1 (f) in particular, and 2-A-1 in general, must have seniority in the
craft and class.
the Electrical craft. This is
that of Electrician. The Claimants
are in the Lineman classification. Therefore, they do not have any rights to
the protections afforded in 2-A-1. Stated otherwise, Linemen, when applying
for a position out of their classification, are not covered by 2-A-1.
As to Rule 2-A-1 (c), this limitation in Rule 2-A-1 only comes into play,
under the parties' Agreement, when discussing an apprentice vis a vis another
applicant with both craft and classification seniority. Thus, a trainee would
lose out if another electrician had applied, even -if the electrician had less
craft seniority than the trainee. The other provisions cited by the Organization
are not apposite.
Since the Claimants' names do not appear an the Electricians' roster,
regardless of the equities, the claim must be rejected. If the parties wish a
single seniority district, with the right to bid across classification s, they
must do so through bargaining process. We are not empowered or inclined to
rewrite the Agreement. Therefore, we will deny the claim in its entirety.
Here the Claimants do hold seniority in
undisputed. However, the class in question is
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
Byy
~; ~ .r
~,,r semarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Date at Chicago, Illinois, this 2nd day of February, 1983