Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 11798
SECOND DIVISION Docked No. 11726-I
89-2-88-2-220
. f._
x,d
' .': s.
.'"1 G
The Second Division consisted of the regular members end in
:
`i i _Ar<n
addition Referee John C. Fletcher wheg~award reran rendered. t,-~r :.:>~`
9r , =_iJC)W
(Charles Thacker _
PARTIES TO DISPUTE: ( ~~,~:y
(National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: _ , srf
,
., ;sr>~a
1. Grievance of Electrician Charles 'hacker Beech Grove, Indiana
-I ., ~,~.,jil~
identified as National Railroad Passenger Corporation File No. CHG-IBEW-366
and IBEW-TC-603.
=i-:'
. - 1
' ` ·,'yf1:3ChC[sr'..
FINDINGS: , . .~:. :.- ais
The Second Division of the Adjustment ~ Board upon j~the whole record,
~h~d~`y~ .
all
.~,.t~
all the evidence, finds that: . , ~.; ,~,_,.,
~_ . `. -.
r
_, .~
:oi`
"1 y
The carrier or carriers and the employe or emplQyes invo;ved in this.,
`;-~,rr
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 were given due notice of hearing thereon.
The dispute under review here is one of sixteen identical cases
appealed to our Board, individually, by employees assigned in Carrier's Beech
Grove, Indiana, Maintenance Facility. Claimants are all former Penn Central
employees who were taken into employment by Amtrak under the terms and provisions of an Implementing Agreement made at Washington, D.C. on February 24,
1975, under which Amtrak acquired certain portions of ..t a Repaix!y.,
p;S,
~Beech.
Grove and took over the maintenance and. repair of its
,0
equiht-.,-
r'
named Claimant in this docket, as well as those in the other cases, alleges
that he has been placed in a worse position with respect to compensation and
seeks retroactive adjustments thereto.
The Carrier contends that this matter is procedurally defective on a
number of grounds and, accordingly, must be dismissed. It also argues that
the Claim is without merit, and if the Board could consider the matter on its
merits it must, nevertheless, be denied.
Form l Award No. 11798
Page
2 Docket No. 11726-I
89-2-88-2-220
While tb,e
.Boavd
does not find the procedural objections of Carrier to
be unpersuasive, we.nonetheless feel that this matter warrants consideration
on ItS..-merits. The aanderlying assumption on which this Claim is based is that
employees conveyed to. Amtrak from the former Penn Central at the Beech Grove
Maintenance Facility are required
to
be paid wages at the same level they
would.3aave received had their remained in the service of Penn Central and its
successor, Conrail. Particularly, Claimant bases this assumption on the
"Wkereas." of the February 24, 1975 Agreement and pararaphs (6), (7) and (8) of
the text.
From our reading of the "Whereas" and paragraphs (6), (7) and (8) of
the.Agreement we are unable to find a clearly expressed intention that Amtrak
mould be required to pay wages at the same level Penn Central (now Conrail)
*xp~dyees~received: Such,An expression is necessary for Claimant to prevail.
Claimant contends, though, that references within the Agreement to
Appendix C-1 protection and
Merger
Protective Conditions contemplate treatment
as if they had not left Penn Central/Conrail service. In the instant case we
view
Merger Protective Conditions arid C-1 Protection to be superseded by
F*4.-4I Law.
On this record it is clear that commencing April 1, 1976, Title
V of .tire Regional Rail Reorganization Act governed Amtrak employees conveyed
from.Penn Central at Beech Grove and all prior coverage under the Penn Central
Merger Protection Agreement and Appendix C-1 was terminated.
The claim is without merit and will be denied.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
,1.t L~iB~:
e .
.. Nancy. "J` 7er - E
xe-etCVe Seertt$ry
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 29th day of November 1989.