Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 10825
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 10385-T
2-S00-CM-'86
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Robert W. McAllister when award was rendered.
(Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the United States and
( Canada
Parties to Dispute:
(Soo Line Railroad Company

Dispute: Claim of Employes:












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.



The Claimant in this case is James Shephard, a Carman at the Carrier's Shoreham Shops, Minnesota. On eleven days in August and September, 1981, it is claimed that Foreman L. G. Dunivan and Car Shop Supervisor T. F. Kuduk inspected and marked up the defects on freight cars. The essence of this dispute revolves about whether or not Dunivan and Kuduk performed work which is of a managerial nature or whether or not they were inspecting for additional defects after the cars were already bad ordered.
Form 1 Award No. 10825
Page 2 Docket No. 10385-T
2-S00-CM-'86

Dunivan initially responded on October 10, 1981, and said he believes it was his duty and obligation to look the cars over so he would know what was coming into the Car Shop for repair. The Manager of Shops, B. A. Nelson, responded on December 10, 1981, that it is the responsibility of the Foreman to insure that all defects are written up and that the defects written up are legitimate. The Board concurs with the above statements and finds them in line with Award 8127.





This Board detects a change in the Carrier's original position, and, in effect, does not deny the two Supervisors were inspecting for defects. In fact, Kuduk's statement of October 10, 1981, indicates he believes that, once a car is initially bad ordered and moved, he has the responsibility to check and mark up any defects he finds.

This Board has consistently expressed itself when a practice is raised in the face of clear and unambiguous language. Regardless of how long enduring, resort to such proof is not relevant when a rule is clear and specific. As stated by Referee Marx in Award 8127:




Given the acknowledgment of Kuduk, it is evident he was marking up defects as a matter of course and not as an isolated discovery of an overlooked defect. This action is quite distinguishable from work claimed to be strictly for supervisory purposes.







Attest. 001-0,
Nancy J. - Executive Executive Secretary

Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 16th day of April 1986.