Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 12376
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 12396-T
92-2-91-2-196
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Kay McMurray when award was rendered.
(Brotherhood Railway Carmen/Division of TCU
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Southern Pacific Transportation Company (Western Division)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
1. That the carrier violated the terms of the controlling agreement
between Southern Pacific Transportation Company and the Organization effective
April 16, 1942, as subsequently amended, Rules 33(a) and 104 when they assigned the work of "jacking up" or "lifting" of freight cars for purposes of
effecting repairs to same on various dates in March, 1990.
2. That accordingly, the carrier be ordered to compensate Freight
Carmen R. P. Pina, M. G. Dobbs, L. M. Dickson, C. E. Piatt, A. M. Kalogero,
and S. J. Hazel eight (8) hours at the time and one-half rate of pay each for
the dates specified in March 1990, and for each subsequent day thereafter as
long as the violation is allowed to continue.
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 claim arose because on certain dates in March 1990, the Carrier
assigned employees, other than Carmen, to operate the Big Lift (10005-R) for
the purpose of lifting freight cars in order to have their bad order wheels
changed. The Organization views this action as a violation of the Agreement
since it interprets such work as being exclusively assigned to Carmen.
Form 1 Award No. 12376
Page 2 Docket No. 12396-T
92-2-91-2-196
When the dispute was first discussed on the property, the Brotherhood
of Firemen and Oilers also claimed that the work belonged to its Organization.
The record reveals that at certain locations on the property, Fireman and
Oilers had been used to accomplish the same task.
In view of the jurisdictional nature of this dispute for the allocation of work, Carrier officials urged the Organizations to invoke Memorandum
"A" of the Agreement which was designed for such matters. That Memorandum
reads in part:
"In connection with and supplementary to the Motive
Power and Car Department Agreement which became
effective April 16, 1942 . . . numerous changes have
been made in the 'Classification of Work' and other
Rules under which men have heretofore been working,
and a great deal of detail and description of the
work has been eliminated, which may result in one
craft or class requesting or contending for work
that is being performed by another craft or class.
In recognition of the facts above recited, and in
order to avoid confusion at the local points and
provide an orderly determination of the items of
work not specifically stated in the 'Classification
of Work' and other Rules of the several crafts, it
is agreed that existing practices will be continued
unless and until otherwise decided by conference and
negotiation between the General Chairman involved and
the General Superintendent of Motive Power, for purposes of uniformly applying such decision wherever
necessary in the railroad . . . .'
Neither Organization was willing to invoke Memorandum "A." Claimant continued
to process the claim to this Board. The Firemen and Oilers advised the Board
by letter that they were in agreement with the Carrier but would not file a
written response in connection with this dispute. It stated that its decision
not to intervene in this case should not be considered as a waiver of its
right to intervene in future cases under similar circumstances.
From the foregoing and the entire record, it is clear that the parties have agreed upon the procedure for resolving this type of dispute. Failure to utilize that procedure is a bar to consideration of the dispute by this
Board.
A W A R D
Claim dismissed.
Form 1 Award No. 12376
Page 3 Docket No. 12396-T
92-2-91-2-196
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest:
ancy J er - Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 1st day of July 1992.