Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 10016
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 9439-T
2-SP-FO-'84
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee George S. Roukis when award was rendered.
( International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers
Parties to Dispute:
( Southern Pacific Transportation Company (Pacific Lines)
Dispute: Claim of gnployes:
1. That Southern Pacific Transportation Company (Pacific Lines), violated
Rules 6 and 7 of the current
agreement between
the aforementioned
Carrier and the Firemen and Oilers Craft, when Trainmaster Mr. G. M.
Gorman, issued instructions which took the work of operating a carryall
away from the Firemen and Oilers Craft and turned it over to Fresno Yard
Clerks.
2. That accordingly, the Southern Pacific Transportation Company, be
ordered to pay the difference between Laborer's rate of pay and Motor
Truck Operator's rate of pay to:
R. L. Welker - 8 hours a day - 5 days
a
week
A. P. Pina - 8 hours a day - 5 days a week
E. Borrego - 8 hours a day - 5 days a week
J. R. AI varez - 8 hours a day - 3 days a week
R. P. Borrego - 8 hours a day - 2 days a week
T. J. 3eanez - 8 hours a day - 1 day a week
Since May 13, 1980, until the work of operating the carryall and the
transporting of crews are returned to Firemen and Oilers Craft.
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 were given due notice of hearing thereon.
Form 1 Award No. 10016
Page 2 Docket No. 9439-T
2-SP-FO-'84
Vow
The Organization contends that Carrier violated the Controlling Agreement,
particularly Rules 6 and 7 when Carrier allegedly took the work of operating a
carryall away from the Firemen and Oilers Craft and assigned it to the Fresno Yard
Clerks. It argues that the work was performed by firemen and oilers for over
twenty-five (25) years and was recognized as exclusive work. Its position seeks
compensatory reimbursement for six (6) employer, effective May 13, 1980 and
continuing thereafter until the work is returned.
Carrier asserts that the petition is procedurally defective since the
organization has not set forth the specified dates or times of occurrences when
the Agreement violation occurred. It avers that it is vague and indefinite and
constitutes a blanket claim. It argues that it is not responsible for developing
a nebulous claim. Carrier further asserts it is not restricted by Rules 6 or 7
from assigning this work to other employes since neither Rule 6 nor Rule 7 defines
the specific type of work in this dispute. Moreover, it argues that past practice
clearly shows that Claimants have been assigned this work as well as clerical
employes at Fresno. It submitted three signed statements by clerical employes at
the Fresno situs who stated that the work has been performed by yard office,
freight office and diesel shop forces. It maintains that even though employes
represented by the Organization have performed such work, it does not make it
exclusive to that one craft when employes covered by other Labor Agreements
perform the same work at Fresno and at other points on the property. It cited
several Second Division Awards on the definition and application of exclusivity.
(See Second Division Award Nos. 74618 7482, 7861. In addition, see Award No. 1 of
Public Law Board 1818.)
The Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks (BRAG) as a third
party of interest support Carrier's position that no particular craft or class of
employes has ever been assigned the exclusive right to transport train service
crews. BRAC also argues that the work is now preserved to the clerks since July
1, 1979 when BRAC and the Carrier amended the Scope rule to protect the work
and/or positions attached to crew hauling. It avers that employes represented by
BRAC have hauled crews at Fresno for some thirty (30) years and asserts that with
the abolishment of Yard Clerk positions at Fresno, the job of transporting crews
was assigned to various yard office clerical employer.
In our review of this case, we concur with Carrier's position. We have
examined Rules 6 and 7, but we cannot conclude that either rule explicitly reserves
this work to the Firemen and Oilers. From the record it appears that both contesting
crafts have performed this work at Fresno, California. Several clerks have submitted
such documentation. Outside of the assertion that the aforesaid rules were violated,
the Organization has not adduced any additional supportive proof. Lacking this
specific information, the Board has no measurable basis for determining objectively
the claim's merits. Unfortunately, under these circumstances, we are compelled to
deny the claim.
Form 1 Award No. IOC)16
Page 3 Docket No. 94 39-T
2-SP-FO-'84
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
oe
Attest:
010
Nancy ~ver - Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 8th day of August, 1984.