Form I NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
SECOND DIVISION
Award No. 13270
Docket No. 13121
98-2-96-2-20
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee
Eckehard Muessig when award was rendered.
(International Association of Machinists and
( Aerospace Workers AFL-CIO
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Soo Line Railroad Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
:
"
Dispute - Claim of Employees:
The Soo Line Railroad Company (hereinafter referred to as the
Carrier) violated the controlling Agreement, specifically Memorandum of
agreement effective March 1, 1989, when it improperly refused to assign
upgraded Machinists R.
A.
Wimmer, V. B. lieiman and C. Knapp,
Cudahy, Wisconsin (hereinafter referred to as the Claimants) to Traveling
Mechanic positions.
Accordingly the Sot) Line Railroad Company assign the claimants
proper Traveling Mechanic seniority dates and pay the claimants for all
wages lost due to being arbitrarily and capriciously bypassed for Traveling
Mechanic positions."
FINDINGS
:
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.
Form 1 Award No. 13270
Page 2 Docket No. 13121
98-2-96-2-20
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved
herein.
Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.
This dispute focuses primarily on how a Traveling Mechanic's position must be
filled and whether the persons selected must come from the ranks of employees
represented by the International Association of Machinists (the "Organization").
Controlling in this dispute is a "Memorandum of Agreement ("MOA") between
the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers and the Soo Line
Railroad Company," signed on February 12, 1989. This MOA became effective March
1, 1989.
The MOA established the classification of Traveling Mechanic "for the purpose
of performing necessary mechanical work on road equipment, on line of road,
throughout the entire Soo Line system." The Carrier's application of this MOA resulted
in the claim now before the Board.
Simply stated, the Carrier, on March 29 and 31, 1994 bulletined IS seasonal
traveling Mechanic positions. It assigned employees to the positions after all employees
who placed a bid for the advertised position, who did not already hold Traveling
Mechanic seniority, were interviewed.
The Organization. on behalf of the three Claimants, contends that assignment to
the Traveling :Mechanic positions is exclusively reserved to the members of its Craft
based on seniority.
The Carrier, on the other hand. maintains that the MOA provides it with the
right to select the most qualified individuals of the candidates from all crafts for
promotion to Traveling Mechanic position.
After careful consideration, the Board concludes that the Organization has not
carried its burden of proof. While a review of the evidence strongly suggests that it was
the intent of the framers of the MOA to allow Machinists to be considered for promotion
to Traveling Mechanic position. the Agreement's language runs counter to the exclusive
assignment argument advanced by the Organization.
Form 1 Award No. 13270
Page 3 Docket No. 13121
98-2-96-2-20
The lead paragraph of the March 1989 Agreement states, in part, as follows:
"This agreement does not apply to employees governed by provisions of
existing agreements between the Company and other labor organizations.
Where Traveling Mechanics are employed and represented by the
International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, they will
be governed by the following:"
Furthermore, on page 4 under the heading of Classification and Seniority, the
MOA reads, in pertinent part, that:
"Traveling Mechanics, when so employed, will carry seniority as such on
a separate seniority roster but all the while employed will continue to
retain and accumulate seniority on seniority roster from which promoted."
Therefore, employees selected do not come exclusively from the Machinist craft. On that
same page, the rights of an employee who hold Machinist seniority were addressed:
"Traveling Mechanics who have established seniority as a machinist and
who, as a result of abolishment of Traveling Mechanics' position, are
unable to hold position of Traveling Mechanic and thereby revert to the
Machinist craft from which promoted. are in possession of displacement
rights in accordance with their seniority at this home point."
Accordingly, the Board must conclude that employees from other crafts may be
promoted to Traveling Mechanic positions.
Then, on page S of the MOA, under the heading "Promotion," it provides. in
pertinent part. that:
"Assignment shall be made on the basis of skill and ability, these being
equal. seniority will govern."
.-any fair reading leads to the conclusion that this is broad contractual language.
It provides the Carrier with the unilateral right to determine who is the best qualified
from those who make a bid. It is not restricted to Machinists.
Form I Award No. 13270
Page 4 Docket No. 13121
98-2-96-2-20
In summary, absent a showing of an abuse by the Carrier of its discretion, the
claim must be denied.
AWARD
Claim denied.
ORDER
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that
an award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Dated at Chicago, Illinois. this 18th day of May 1998.