Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 11094
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 10731
2-MP-CM-'86
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Hyman Cohen when award was rendered.
(Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the United States
( and Canada
Parties to Dispute:
(Missouri Pacific Railroad Company
Dispute: Claim of Employer:
1. That the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company violated Rule 102 of
the controlling agreement when they used Assistant General Car Inspector J. M.
Lambert to inspect freight cars MP 821297;
MP
726199; MP 726438;
MP
734865; MP
821232; MP 734945; MP 731006; MP 820038; MP 726548 at Bastrop, Louisiana.
2. That the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company be ordered to compensate Cayman O. L. Howard in the amount of four (4) hours at the pro rata 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 employer 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 Carrier operates a train yard and repair facility at Monroe, Louisiana.
On February 25, 1983, the Assistant General Car Inspector, stationed
at Monroe, Louisiana, cent to Bastrop, Louisiana, and inspected several
freight cars.
The Carrier has Carmen employes on duty twenty-four (24) hours a day,
seven (7) days a week at its Monroe facility. Among the Carmen employed at
its facility is the Claimant.
The Organization contends that the Carrier violated Rule 102 of the
Agreement because the Assistant General Car Inspector performed work to tie
performed exclusively by Carmen. On the other hand the Carrier argues that
the inspection in question is a proper exercise of Supervisory responsibility.
Form 1 Award No. 11094
Page 2 Docket No. 10731
2-MP-CM-'86
After carefully examining the record, the Board concludes that the
duties performed by the Assistant General Car Inspector were incidental to the
legitimate exercise of Supervisory duties.
The cars were inspected, in part, for damage after being released
from an industry at Bastrop. This inspection is performed by Supervisory
personnel so that damage to a freight car can be detected as soon as possible
in order to determine the party responsible for the damage. In this way, the
damage is documented and the industry responsible for the damage can be billed
for repairs. Moreover, the inspection by the Assistant General Car Inspector
was for the purpose of checking the manner in which maintenance has been performed and is needed, and to determine the quality of inspections performed by
Carmen. These duties, in the view of the Board, come within the purview of
Supervisory duties and are not included within the classification of Work Rule
(Rule 102). This conclusion is reinforced by Second Division Award No. 3522
in which the following was stated:
"The measuring of piston travel, as done by the
foreman in the instant case, cannot be considered
as work accruing exclusively to the carman craft.
General car foreman, general car inspectors, master
mechanics, general. master mechanics, etc., regularly check behind those under their supervision to
insure proper performance of work and compliance
with existing rules and regulations. The files of
the carrier contain many reports made by general
car inspectors, general master mechanics, etc.,
concerning irregularities observed, including
improper piston travel on cars checked by other
than carmen. The employes have never previously
taken exception to such measurements being made by
supervision.
The measuring of piston travel, as done by the
foreman in this case, has long been recognized by
the employes as one of the requirements necessary
in the exercise of: supervision."
It should be underscored that no Carmen are employed at Bastrop; nor
do any Carmen hold seniority at that point. Thus, in the absence of evidence
to demonstrate that the work in question has been historically performed by
Carmen (indeed, the evidence is to be contrary) it is highly unlikely that the
work in question constitutes Catznen's work.
Based upon the record, the inspection in question was not for the
purpose of writing up defects for Carmen to make repairs. The Board is unpersuaded by the evidence presented by the Organization that Supervisors are prohibited from performing the work in question.
Form 1 Award No. 11094
Page 3 Docket No. 10731
2-MP-CM-'86
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest:
-~ _
ancy J. v - Executive c tary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 10th day of December 1986.