The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Herbert L. Marx, Jr. when award was rendered.
The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:
The carrier or carriers and the employee or employees involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employee 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 Organization contends that on Sunday, May 24, 1992, at approximately 1 p.m., the Carrier assigned or otherwise permitted a Foreman to remove a head from the engine block on John Deere tractor #12 at the Carrier's Brooklyn Shops. These facts are not disputed in the claim handling procedure. Form 1 Award No. 12943
The Organization argues that this work was improperly performed by a Foreman and should have been assigned to a Machinist. The Organization points to Rule 27, Assignment of Work, which states in pertinent part as follows:
The Organization also refers to Rule 52, Classification of Work, which states in pertinent part as follows:
The Organization's simple position is that the work involved should properly be assigned to a Machinist; Machinists are assigned to the Brooklyn Shops; and there is no basis to permit a Foreman to perform the work in question.
In response, the Carrier offers a number of defenses, none of which is convincing to the Board. The Carrier states:
As to the absence of Machinists on a Sunday, the Carrier apparently refers to Rule 27, which permits mechanics' work by foreman "at points where no mechanics are employed" and Rule 15, which states "Foreman may perform mechanics' work at points where there are no mechanics employed under their supervision." Considering that Machinists are regularly assigned at the Brooklyn Form 1 Award No. 12943
Shop, the Board finds it disingenuous to suggest that Foreman are somehow free to perform mechanics' work on a day on which such employees are not regularly scheduled. Followed to its extreme, and assuming a Monday-Friday regular work week, this would mean that Foreman could perform any and all work on Saturdays and Sundays. The cited Rules are hardly intended for this purpose.
As to the time spent in the work, the Carrier makes no claim as to a de minimis situation, so it can only be assumed that at least a modest amount of time was involved. The Carrier does not explain the significance of whether or not special skills or tools are involved.
The Carrier suggests that Rule 52 is "general in nature". Without analyzing this point further, suffice it to say that the Rule does refer to the type of work in question; and no affirmative defense is raised as to the work being regularly performed by other crafts. More significantly, there is no assertion that such work is performed as part of the regular work of a Foreman.
The Claim has merit. The remedy is limited, however, to payment to the Claimant of four hours' straight time pay.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an Award favorable to the Claimant(s) be made. The Carrier is ordered to make the Award effective on or before 30 days following the postmark date the Award is transmitted to the parties.