Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 10099
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 9645--T
2-SPT-SM-184
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Herbert L. Marx, Jr. when award was rendered.
( Sheet Metal Workers International Association
Parties to Dispute:
( Southern Pacific Transportation Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
(1) That Carrier violated Rules 33 and 77 of current Motive Power and Car
Department Agreement on July 1, 1981 when work coming under Rule 77
and generally recognized as sheet metal workers work was arbitrarily
assigned to employes other than Sheet Metal Workers.
(2) That Carrier has acknowledged the violation to be true as claimed.
(3) That Carrier pay claimant T. Taylor 4 hours pay at straight time
rate.
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 Machinists organization, a third party at interest, was notified of
this dispute and determined that no response was necessary.
Two Machinists were assigned to connect multiple unit hoses in making up a
train consist at the E1 Paso, Texas Locomotive Maintenance Plant on July 1,
1981. There is no dispute that such work should properly be assigned to Sheet
Metal Workers. The Carrier conceded this during the processing of the claim.
The Carrier is correct that an offer of settlement made during the claim
processing, rejected by the organization, should not be considered by the
Board. This does not affect, however, the Carrier's admission as to the
improper assignment of work.
The Organization argues that the proper settlement of this matter is
the payment of four hours' pay to a Sheet Metal Worker on his rest day who
was available for the work. The Organization cites Rule 6 (b) which reads
in pertinent part as follows:
Form 1 Award No. 10099
Page 2 Docket No. 9645-T
2-SPT-SM-184
"Except as otherwise provided in the Agreement employes required to
work on their assigned rest days will be allowed a minimum of four
(4) hours for two (2) hours and forty (40) minutes work or less, and
thereafter at the overtime rate. "
The Carrier argues that the work involved took only ten minutes and should
be considered de minimis. The Carrier futher suggests that a payment of four
hours' pay would be inappropriate.
The Board does not agree with the Carrier's position. Absent any rule to
the contrary, the failure to assign work to the craft whose exclusive jurisdiction
is recognized is not a trivial matter. Rule 6 (b) provides the appropriate
remedy, specifying a "minimum" payment of four hours.
A W A R D
Claim sustained.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
ATTEST
Nancy J ~ver - Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 26th day of September 1984.