NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
SECOND DIVISION
Form 1 Award No. 12540
Docket No. 11933
93-2-90-2-41
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee John C. Fletcher when award was rendered.
w
(International Brotherhood of Electrical
(Workers
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Chicago and North Western Transportation
(Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
"1. That the Chicago and North Western
Transportation Company violated the current
Agreement effective December 1, 1985,
specifically Rule 35, when they wrongfully
compensated Construction Lineman Glen R. Brady
at a lower rate of pay than which he was
entitled while working as a Station Lineman at
the One North Western Center.
2. That the Chicago and North Western
Transportation Company make Mr. Brady whole
for the difference in wages because of their
failure to award him the higher rate of pay to
which he was contractually entitled."
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 employe 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.
Claimant, regularly assigned as a Construction Lineman at
Carrier's Proviso, Illinois yard was temporarily reassigned in
December 1988, to Carrier's Chicago, Illinois Headquarters to
perform work connected with the relocation of telephones, computer
terminals and terminal controllers. On February 17, 1989, a Claim
was filed contending that Claimant should have been paid at the
Station Lineman's rate for the time worked at Carrier's
Form 1 Award No. 12540
Page 2 Docket No. 11933
93-2-90-2-41 `'
Headquarters, rather than the Construction Lineman rate.
Rule 76 of the Agreement distinguishes between Communications
Linemen and Station Linemen. With regard to Communication's
Linemen, it provides:
"A lineman electrician who is qualified to
install, inspect, repair or maintain inside
wiring, switchboards, rheostats, motor
generators or other signaling line utilization
equipment, splice lead-sheathed cable or do
any other work upon signaling lines that is
generally recognized as electricians' work
shall be classified a Communications Lineman."
And with regard to Station Linemen, the Rule states:
"An electrician stationed at a designated
headquarters, who is qualified both as
electrician and lineman, and who, subordinate
to the foreman of a district, has charge of
and is responsible for the repairs and
maintenance of line and equipment in a more or
less definitely limited subdivision, or
subdivisions of the foreman's district shall
be classified as a station lineman."
The facts in this regard support a conclusion that Claimant,
while working in Carrier's Headquarters, performed work as a
Station Lineman and not that of a Communications Lineman. These
facts further indicate that on previous occasions, Claimant was
paid as a Station Lineman while temporarily assigned to Kenosha,
Wisconsin. The work he performed in December 1988, January and
February, 1989 in Carrier's Headquarters was of the same type
performed at the other location. It should have been paid for the
Station Lineman rate, as provided in Rule 35, reading:
"An employee working one hour or more on a
higher rated work will receive the higher rate
for the actual time worked. If used four
hours or more for such higher rated work on
any day, will be allowed the higher rate of
pay for the entire day.
An employee coming within the scope of this
Agreement temporarily promoted or assigned
higher-rated work during the whole or part of
his daily assignment, will be allowed actual
time worked at the higher rate of
Form 1 Award No. 1254()
Page 3 Docket No. 1193:9
' 93-2-90-2-41
compensation, with a minimum allowance of one
hour.
When temporarily assigned to a lower rated
position, his rate of pay will not be
reduced."
Carrier has raised a procedural defense contending that the
original claim was defective because it did not indicate which
dates Claimant worked at the Headquarters. The Board finds this
argument unpersuasive. Carrier most certainly must be aware of the
dates Claimant was detached from his headquarters at Proviso and
instructed to report to Corporate Headquarters in the Chicago Loop.
Accordingly, he is entitled to be made whole at the Station Lineman
rate for each day worked at Corporate Headquarters, commencing
sixty days prior to the date his initial claim was filed.
A W A R D
Claim sustained.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest:
ancy J, er - Secretary to the Board
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 21st day of July 1993.