.! , ,
Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 9763
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 8914
2-SLSF-CM-184
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Herbert L. Marx, Jr. when award was rendered.
( Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the United States and Canada
Parties to Dispute:
( St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That the St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company violated the provisions
of the current controlling Agreement and the Memorandum of Agreement signed at
Springfield, Missouri, the 8th day of July, 1977, effective July 1, 1977, when it
improperly promoted junior painter apprentices Y. D. Scott and C. A. Fisher ahead
of senior apprentice R. T. Eddy.
2. That accordingly the St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company be ordered
to compensate carman painter apprentice R. T. Eddy for the difference in pay
between the carman painter apprentice rate of pay and journeyman carman painter
rate, commencing January 22, 1979, for the Carrier's refusal to promote painter
apprentices in seniority order.
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 employes 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 Claimant, a Painter Apprentice, was furloughed in December 1978 as part
of a "large seasonal layoff" (as characterized by the Carrier). Also furloughed
were two other Painter Apprentices then working as upgraded Journeyman Painters,
both of whom had less seniority than the Claimant.
When the force was restored to work on January 22, 1979, the two employes
who had been working in upgraded positions were returned to that status, and the
Claimant was~returned to his Apprentice position. (Two days later, owing to an
increase in service requirements, the Claimant was upgraded.)
Form 1 Award No. 9763
Page 2 Docket No. 8914
2-SLSF-CM-184
The Organization argues that, upon return from furlough, the Claimant should
have been given upgraded status in preference to one of the less senior Painter
Apprentices.
At issue here is the interpretation of a portion of Section 6 of the July 1,,
1977 Memorandum of Agreement which reads as follows:
"6. (a) The practice of upgrading carman helpers
is discontinued. In the event of not being able to
employ journeyman mechanics of the Carmen's Craft or
carmen with three years' experience, the force may be
increased by promoting the senior qualified apprentices
...
(e) A list of temporary carmen shall be
prepared and maintained at each seniority point of
those apprentices promoted to mechanics as set forth
in paragraph (a) hereof. Such list of temporary carmen
shall show the name of apprentices promoted in date order
and the date promoted. Iz. the event of more than one
employe being promoted on the same date, they will rank
according to the number of hours credited at that time
towards completion of the training. When force is
reduced, the junior temporary carmen will be set back
first."
This issue, involving the same parties, was recently considered and resolved
by the Board in Award No. 8606 (Marx). In sustaining the claim, that Award state=d:
"The Memorandum of Agreement is clear, in Section
6 (e), as to the order of reducing temporary carmen;
i.e., 'the junior temporary carmen will be set back
first.' Coming as part of a paragraph dealing with
the order of listing of temporary carmen, this clearly
refers to service in this capacity and not as
apprentices.
f
Paragraph 6 (e) is silent, however, as to restoring
the positions of temporary carmen. As the Organization
points out, this is covered in Paragraph 6 (a) which
states that, when needed, 'the force may be increased
by promoting the senior qualified apprentices'.
(Emphasis added).
Form 1 Award No. 9763
Page 3 Docket No. 8914
2-SLSF-CM-184
"However well intended the Carrier's action in giving
preference to those employes who were on the temporary
carmen list prior to the December 23, 1977 furlough, the
Board cannot find support for this in the specific words
of the Memorandum of Agreement. Paragraph 6 (a) is
concerned with upgrading and speaks of priority for
'senior qualified apprentices'. (Emphasis added)"
Award No. 8&20 (Dennis) is to the identical effect.
The Board finds the reasoning in these two Awards fully applicable to the
dispute here under review and has no basis to reach a different conclusion.
A
w
A R D
Claim sustained to provide the difference in pay for January 22 and 23,
1979.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
ATTEST:
Nancy ver - Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois this 18th day of January 1984.