Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 10151
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 10017
2-GTW-CM-'84
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee W. J. Peck when award was rendered.
( Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the United States and Canada
Parties to Dispute:
( Grand Trunk Western Railroad Company
Dispute: Claim of Employees:
Grievance of Lodge #215 of the Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the United States
and Canada, at Toledo,
Ohio:
1. That the Grand Trunk Western Railroad Company violated Rule 35 of the
controlling Agreement effective September 1, 1949, reprinted February
1, 1962, by not turning on available heat in the new car shop at Toledo,
Ohio, beginning with the winter season, 1982, and
continuing.
2. That the Grand Trunk Western Railroad Company be ordered to immediately
restore heat in the new car shop at Toledo,
Ohio,
as provided in Rule
35 of the controlling Agreement.
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.
This dispute involved the heating (or lack of same) at a Carrier repair
facility at Toledo,
Ohio.
The Employees refer to it as "The New Car Shop", the
Carrier contends that it is "Nothing more than a covered
running repair
track
where minor repairs are made to freight cars".
Rule 35 reads in pertinent part:
"Shops, locker rooms and washrooms will be lighted and heated
in the best possible manner, consistent with the source
heat available at the point in question."
There seems no dispute over the fact that the locker room, lunch room and
toilet facilities are heated. The Carrier contends that they are thereby in
compliance with the agreement and that it is impractical and too expensive to
heat the entire work area. The Employees contend the entire work area must be
heated.
Form 1 Award No. 101.51
Page 2 Docket No. 10017
2-GTW-CM-184
There also seems no dispute over the fact that this "shop" or "running repair
track" has been heated in the past. For how long a period and how successful it
was is certainly not clear. If it had been heated for a long period of time,
there would seem no reason why it couldn't continue to be heated. If it had been
heated only for a relatively short time, say one winter or a part of one winter,
on a more or less experimental basis, and found to be impractical, that would' be
another matter. According to the Employees' submission it had been heated for
the previous twenty-two years. The Carrier does not state how long it had been
heated but seems to imply that the period was short. No proof is presented by
either party to substantiate the position of either and we note that this very
important question
is
never mentioned by either in correspondence during handling
on the property.
The Employees further contend that:
"The condition upon which grievance is based does not exist
at any other car shop facility."
The Carrier on the other hand contends that:
"Running repair track facilities similar to this one and
used for the same purpose, have been constructed at all
other major terminals on the G. T. W. None of these facilities
are equipped with heaters because of their inefficiencies."
No substantiation of either of these conflicting contentions is shown and
the only time it appeaJ.`s in correspondence in handling on the property is in a
letter from the Director of Labor Relations to the General Chairman and dated
five days after the case had been submitted to this Board, obviously too late to
be answered by the Employees and too late to be considered by this Board.
It would have also been very helpful if the parties would have shown when
this so called "New Car Shop" was erected, what were the conditions under which
the cars were repaired before it was erected, exactly when were the heaters first
used and as previously mentioned how long were they used, however except for the
Employees' contention, which appears in their submission, but not in any
correspondence submitted to this Board, the record is barren of such details.
Because of the lack of information supplied to this Board and the lack of
substantiation of such alleged information as was supplied, we see no alternative
but to remand this case back to the property without prejudice to the position of
either party and with the hope that the issue can somehow be resolved on the
property but if it cannot it would seem appropriate to allow another and hopefully
a more informative case to be presented to the Board.
Form 1
Page 3
A W A R D
Claim disposed of according to the Findings.
Award No. 10151
Docket No. 10017
2-GTW-CM-'84
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT HOARD
By Order of Second Division
Nancy
- Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 7th day of November 1984.