Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
SECOND DIVISION
Award No. 13342
Docket No. 13146
98-2-96-2-47
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
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Grand Trunk Western Railroad Incorporated
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
"(1.) That the Grand Trunk Western Railroad Company violated
the applicable provisions of Rules 15, 27 and 45 of the September 1, 1949
controlling agreement when on the dates of November 24, 25, December
3 and December 12, 1994 it improperly permitted a `temporary' assigned
foreman D. Price to return to his class and craft to perform Machinist
work at the Carrier's Flat Rock, Michigan locomotive servicing facility.
(2.) That in the initial presentation of the Employees' claims to the
first level Carrier officer designated to handle such matters, specific
reason was not thereafter given by said Carrier officer as to why the
Employees' claims were denied thereby constituting a violation of Rule
29(a) (Article V of the August 21, 1954 National Agreement.)
(3.) That accordingly, the Carrier be ordered to compensate Flat
Rock Machinist employee M. Erickson in the amount of eight (8) hours at
the overtime rate of pay for Machinist work performed by `temporary'
foreman D. Price on November 24, 1994; Flat Rock Machinist employee
F. Hammack in the amount of eight (8) hours at the overtime rate of pay
for Machinist work performed by `temporary' foreman D. Price on
November 25, 1994; Flat Rock Machinist employee G. Gorman in the
amount of eight (8) hours at the overtime rate of pay for Machinist work
performed by `temporary' foreman D. Price on December 3, 1994; and
Flat Rock Machinist employee G. Norton in the amount of eight (8) hours
Form 1 Award No. 13342
Page 2 Docket No. 13146
98-2-96-2-47
at the overtime rate of pay for Machinist work performed by `temporary'
foreman D. Price on December 12, 1994."
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.
The question in this case is whether the Parties' Agreement legitimizes the
assignment of a Machinist to work a Temporary Foreman's position and then work his
regularly assigned Machinist position within a 24 hour period.
In support of its position, the Organization relies upon Agreement Rules 15, 27
and 45. These Rules, in pertinent part, read as follows:
"Rule 15
Mechanics in service will be considered for promotion to positions
of foremen. The names of mechanics so promoted will be continued on the
seniority list and they will continue to accumulate seniority in the craft
from which promoted.
Mechanics promoted to positions offoremen(other than temporary),
may when released from such position other than on their own request,
exercise their seniority as mechanics on vacancies or newly created
positions. The rights of a mechanic who leaves a position of foreman at his
own request will be subject to negotiation between the General Chairman
of the Craft involved and the proper officer of the railway.
Form 1 Award No. 13342
Page 3 Docket No. 13146
98-2-96-2-47
Mechanics temporarily promoted to positions of foremen will on
release from such temporary employment return to their regular
assignments as mechanics."
"Rule 27 (al
(a) None but mechanics or apprentices regularly employed as such
shall do mechanics' work as per special rules of each craft, except foremen
at points where no mechanics are employed.
This rule does not prohibit foremen in the exercise of their duties to
perform work."
"Rule 45
Machinists' work shall consist of laying out, fitting, adjusting,
shaping, boring, slotting, milling and grinding of metals used in building,
assembling, maintaining, dismantling and installing locomotives and
engines (operated by steam or other power), pumps, cranes, hoists,
elevators, pneumatic and hydraulic tools and machinery, scale building,
shafting and other shop machinery, ratchet and other skilled drilling and
reaming; tool and die making, tool grinding and machine grinding, axle
truing, axle, wheel and tire turning and boring; engine inspecting, air
equipment, lubricator and injector work; removing, replacing, grinding,
bolting, and breaking of all joints on superheaters, oxyacetylene, thermit
and electric welding on work generally recognized as machinists' work; the
operation of all machines used in such work, including drill presses and
bolt threaders using a facing, boring or turning head or milling apparatus;
and all other work generally recognized as machinists' work. On running
repairs, machinists may connect or disconnect any wiring, coupling or pipe
connections necessary to make or repair machinery or equipment.
This rule shall not be construed to prevent engineers, firemen and
cranemen of steam shovels, ditchers, clam shells, wrecking outfits, pile
drivers and other similar equipment requiring repairs on line of road from
making any repairs to such equipment as they are qualified to perform."
Form 1 Award No. 13342
Page 4 Docket No. 13146
98-2-96-2-47
The Board carefully reviewed the extensive record developed by the parties in
support
of
their respective positions. However, we cannot find Agreement support for
the proposition that a Machinist cannot work his regular craft shift, i.e., as a Machinist
and on that same day work a temporary assignment as a Foreman. Certainly, the
Machinist, when he is assigned to the Foreman position, cannot perform the tasks of the
craft in his regular assignment, except as provided in Rule 27(a). But, that is not the
case here.
In summary, there is no specific prohibition in the above-cited Rules to prevent
the Claimant from working two separate and distinct shifts. The Board also notes that
our ruling here is given further substance because the practice at the Carrier's Flat
Rock, Michigan, facility (the site of this claim) as well as the Carrier's Flint and Pontiac
facilities support the Carrier's position. On the other hand, the Organization relies on
the past practice at the Carrier's Battle Creek location. Thus, there is no system-wide
past practice.
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 24th day
of
November 1998.