Form I NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
SECOND DIVISION
Award No. 13296
Docket No. 13235
98-2-97-2-1
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee
Robert L. Hicks when award was rendered.
(International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
( System Council No. 16
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Burlington Northern Railroad
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
"l. That in violation of the controlling Agreement, Electronic
Technician Larry Crossman of Spokane, Washington was not
compensated the differential of fifty cents (.50) per hour as outlined
in the National Skill Study Agreement effective February 4, 1994.
2. That accordingly the Burlington Northern/Santa Fe Railroad
Company should be directed to compensate Electronic Technician
Larry Crossman as outlined in the National Skill Differential
Agreement."
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.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved
herein.
Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.
Form 1 Award No. 13296
Page 2 Docket No. 13235
98-2-97-2-1
This dispute involves what differential pay is due a Communications Electronic
Technician who does not have an FCC license. The only dispute between the parties is
the definition of the parenthetical phrase "or equivalent" that has been intended by the
parties as an exception to the requirement of having an FCC license which, of and by
itself, is one third of the criteria necessary to qualify for the differential of fifty cents an
hour.
The National Agreement language is as follows:
"... 4. Communications electronic technicians (or equivalent maintainers)
with a valid FCC license (or equivalent) who regularly perform repairs
and adjustments on electronic equipment shall receive a differential of 50
cents per hour for all hours worked . . . ."
Claimant benefits from an Agreement reached in 1972, that permits employees
who held seniority as Telephone Inspector Class I-A positions to place themselves on any
new position or vacancy of Electronic Technician without being required to possess an
FCC license.
This Board, in reviewing the entire on-property handling, finds that the phrase
"or equivalent" is so ambiguous that without the parties reaching an accord as to what
that phrase actually means, cannot adequately define the phrase. The burden of proof
in Rules cases advanced to this Board rests solely upon the shoulders of the petitioning
party.
What the Organization seeks is to have this Board define the phrase "or
equivalent" based upon the fact that Claimant has been allowed to work on an
Electronic Technician position. satisfactorily completing all work assigned to him
without the benefit of an FCC license. This Board will not do that. It has insufficient
evidence to issue a sustaining Award that is final and binding upon the parties without
overwhelming evidence of what the parties who negotiated the Agreement meant by the!
phrase "or equivalent." The claim will be denied.
AWARD
Claim denied.
Form 1 Award No. 13296
Page 3 Docket No. 13235
98-2-97-2-1
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
Bv Order of Second Division
Dated at Chicago, Illinois. this 15th day of June 1998.