Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 10926
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 10610
2-SP-SMW-'86
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Jonathan Klein when award was rendered.
(Sheet Metal Workers International Association
Parties to Dispute:
(Southern Pacific Transportation Company (Western Lines)
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
That one vacation relief position for employes of the Sheet Metal
Workers Craft at the San Jose Roundhouse, be established at this time as
provided by the Vacation Agreement signed December 17, 1941 effective January
1, 1942.
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 disputd waived right of appearance at hearing thereon_
On February 25, 1983, the Organization filed the above-captioned
Claim with the Carrier. It premised the Claim upon Section 6 of the Vacation
Agreement of December 17, 1941, effective January 1, 1942, and Rule 1(f) of
the general contract. Section 6 of the Vacation Agreement provides as follows:
"The Carriers will provide vacation relief workers
but the vacation system shall not be used as a
device to make unnecessary jobs for other workers.
Where a vacation relief worker is not needed in a
given instance and if failure to provide a vacation
relief worker does not burden those employes remaining on the job, or burden the employe after his
return from vacation, the Carrier shall not be
required to provide such relief worker."
Rule 1(f) states as follows:
Form 1 Award No. 10926
Page 2 Docket No. 10610
2-SP-SMW-'86
"Regular,Relief Assignments. All possible regular
relief assignments with five (5) days of work and
two (2) consecutive rest days will be established
to do the work necessary on rest days of assign
ments in six or seven-day service or combinations
thereof, or to perform relief work on certain days
and such types of other work on other days as may
be assigned under individual agreements.
Assignments for regular relief positions may on
different days include different starting times,
duties and work locations for employes of the same
class in the same seniority district, provided they
take the starting time, duties and work locations
of the employe or employes whom they are relieving.
Relief employes will take the rate of the regular
employe they are assigned to relieve."
The mechanical work force employed at the point in question consisted
of members from four crafts, with one Sheet Metal Worker scheduled on each of
the three daily shifts Monday through Friday, except for the third shift on
Friday. No Sheet Metal Workers were employed on weekends. The Organization
argues that there is no vacation relief position for members of the Sheet
Metal Workers at the San Jose Roundhouse. As a result, the Organization
claims that when a Sheet Metal Worker is on vacation there will be no employee
of the Sheet Metal Craft on duty to perform the work of the craft.
The Organization states the Claim must be allowed as presented
because the Carrier failed to timely deny the Claim in accordance with Rule 38
of the General Agreement. Rule 38 provides, in pertinent part:
" . . . Should any such claim or grievance be disallowed, the Carrier shall, within sixty (60) days
from the date same is filed, notify whoever filed
the claim or grievance (the employe or his representative), in writing, of the reasons for such
disallowance. If not so notified, the claim or
grievance shall be allowed as presented . . . .'
The Carrier attacks the Claim on three grounds. First, Carrier contends that the Claim as presented requests relief beyond the remedial authority of this Board. Second, the Carrier maintains that the dispute is only
hypothetical in nature and that the Organization has failed to meet its burden
of proof that a vacation relief assignment needed to be established at the San
Jose Roundhouse. Third, the Carrier states that the issue presented by the
Claim is duplicative of an issue already decided by this Board in Carrier's
favor.
Form 1 Award No. 10926
Page 3 Docket No. 10610
2-SP-SMW-'86
The Board finds Carrier's position that only one Claim was made by
the Organization is not well founded based upon review of the entire record.
The first Claim dated November 11, 1982, which was addressed in Second
Division Award No. 10708, requested "that one Sheet Metal Workers Regular
Relief position be established at the San Jose Roundhouse at this time as
provided by the current Agreement." (Emphasis supplied). The instant Cl_aim
filed almost 3-1/2 months later asked, "that one vacation relief position for
employees of the Sheet Metal Workers Craft at the San Jose Roundhouse be
established at this time as provided by the Vacation Agreement signed on
December 17, 1941 effective January 1, 1942". (Emphasis supplied).
It is almost beyond the limits of credibility that the Carrier should
even attempt to convince this Board that these two Claims, distinct and
separate on their face, are nevertheless identical, and therefore, Carrier's
response to the first Claim should suffice for the second. While the Board
does find that the Carrier denied this Claim in correspondence with the
General Chairman dated April 15, 1983, Carrier's response directed primarily
at the earlier Claim barely reaches the minimal level of communication
necessary to constitute a disallowance of the Claim presently under review.
Carrier's response to the instant Claim is obfuscated by its unilateral merger
in the handling on the property of the instant Claim with the Organization's
Claim filed months earlier. Despite our finding of disallowance in this case,
similar treatment of duly presented and separate claims by the Carrier in the
future, a method of handling which serves only to defeat the purpose of the
Claim process itself, will not be tolerated.
Turning to the merits, the Board finds Rule 1(f) expressly addresses
regular relief assignments, not the assignment of vacation relief workers.
Similar to Award No. 10708, the Organization here has failed to meet its
burden of proof that a vacation relief worker is needed, and that Carrier's
failure to provide such a position burdens those employees remaining on the
job, or burdens the vacationing Sheet Metal Worker upon his return to work.
There is simply no evidence that any of the predicate conditions under the
National Vacation Agreement calling for provision of a Vacation Relief Worker
have been met. Due to these findings, it is unnecessary for the Board to
consider the Carrier's contention as to the propriety of the relief sought.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest:
Nancy J. D ~- Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 16th day of July 1986.