Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 12424
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 12400
92-2-91-2-200
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Kay McMcurray when award was rendered.
(Brotherhood Railway Carmen/ Division of TCU
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Southern Railway Company

STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

1. That the Southern Railway Company violated the controlling Agreement when, on May 8, 1990, they advertised a job with the duties listed of a Painter for both Carmen and Junior Student Mechanics in addition to Painters. As a result of this bulletin, Carman L. J. Daugherty was assigned to this Painter's position. He was instructed to report to this position on May 21, 1990, which he did.

2. That accordingly, the Southern Railway Company be ordered to compensate Painters D. C. Tharpe, SSN# 411-74-3834; M. Woods, SSN# 409-920953; J. H. Strange, SSN# 412-66-0330; M. C. Smith, SSN# 409-74-1488; L. D. Carter, SSN# 415-78-3714 and L. E. Russell, SSN# 408-86-1168, beginning May 21, 1990 and continuing each work day, Monday through Friday, eight (8) hours per day on a rotating daily basis until this violation is stopped. Also, that Bulletin Nos. 52 and 57 be abolished and readvertised listing only Painters and that Carman L J. Daugherty be reassigned to a Carman's job.

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 dispute arises because on May 8, 1990, the Carrier posted a bulletin advertising two jobs for "Painter/Carman/Junior Student Mechanic." Two bids were received. One from a Painter, and the other from a Carman, who were awarded the positions.
Form 1 Award No. 12424
Page 2 Docket No. 12400
92-2-91-2-200

The Organization takes sharp exception to the assignment of a Carman to what is considered to be the exclusive work of the Painters. In support of that position it claims that Rules 20 and 132 were violated. The Organization relies on the Agreement language without taking into consideration the amendments to that Agreement. The issue is the effect of the Junior Student Mechanic Agreement made between the Organization and the Carrier on March 9, 1989. The Organization maintains that previous rules of the working Agreement were not altered by that amendment and the Carrier cannot assign a Carman to Painter duties. This Board does not agree with that position. The junior Student Mechanic Agreement among other alternatives provides in Section 4 in pertinent part:

'. . . Employees performing service as a Junior Student Mechanic will have the duties of filling vacancies and performing the work of BRC positions in the Costner Shop facility that are not filled by employees of the Knoxville Carman and Painter seniority rosters as of January 3, 1989. . .

In interpreting the meaning of that language, Public Law Board No. 5015 in Award 30 decided that the foregoing language:

'. . . manifestly eliminates any work assignment distinction between Carmen and Painters which may

have previously existed in other than the assign-'

ment of Junior Student Mechanics to BRC jobs at

Knoxville. The sentence accomplishes this result,

not once but twice. First it clearly states that

Junior Student Mechanics are to fill vacancies and

perform the duties of 'BRC positions' - not Carmen

positions and not Painter positions but BRC posi

tions. 'BRC positions' cannot fairly be read to

mean either 'Carmen positions' or Painter posi

tions.' It must be read to include both. If there

was ambiguity on the meaning of the term 'BRC

positions' and this Board does not find such am

biguity to exist, it is eliminated by the inclusion

of the phrase 'on the Knoxville Carman and Painter

seniority rosters.' This language can only be read

to mean that previous assignment distinctions which

may have existed under earlier agreements are no

longer present when it comes to effecting Student

Mechanic assignments under the Student Mechanic

Agreement."

It will be noted that the distinction between Carman and Painters is eliminated as well as the difference between Painters and Student Mechanics.
Form 1 Award No. 12424
Page 3 Docket No. 12400
92-2-91-2-200
In view of the foregoing and the entire record, we determine that the
controlling Agreement was not violated.

A W A R D

Claim denied.

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

By Order of Second Division

Attest:

Nancy J. r - Executive Secretary

Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 9th day of September 1992.