Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
SECOND DIVISION
Award No.
13365
Docket No.
13290
99-2-97-2-61
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee
Robert L. Hicks when award was rendered.
(Brotherhood Railway Carmen, Division of
( Transportation Communications International Union
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Springfield Terminal Railway Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
"Claim of the Committee of the Union that:
1. That the Maine Central Railway Company (Division of Springfield
Terminal Railway Company) violated the terms of the implementing
agreement when they failed to allow Carman Daniel Thompson the
right to retain his seniority on the Maine Central seniority roster
which he held seniority and as allowed by the provisions set forth in
the implementing agreement between the Maine Central Railroad,
the Delaware and Hudson Railway and the Brotherhood of Railway
Carmen.
2. That, accordingly, the Springfield Terminal Railway Company be
required to allow Carman Daniel Thompson his right to seniority
on the Maine Central carman seniority roster, the same roster he
held seniority at the time of the transfer. Furthermore, any wage
loss, other compensation or benefit that has accrued as a result of
the carrier's improper actions."
FINDINGS:
The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the
evidence, finds that:
Form 1 Award No. 13365
Page 2 Docket No. 13290
99-2-97-2-61
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.
Item I
of
the Statement
of
Claim alleges a violation
of
the "implementing
agreement between the Maine Central Railroad, the Delaware and Hudson Railway and
the Brotherhood . . . ."
The implementing agreement referred to in the aforequoted excerpt from Item
1 of
the Statement of Claim came about through the arbitration provision
of
Section 4,
Article I of the New York Dock Protective Provisions.
In other words, its genesis is due to the New York Dock Protective Conditions,
and thus, any alleged violation thereof flows from the provisions of the New York Dock
Protective Agreement which contains machinery to resolve any and all disputes.
In Third Division Award 31680, involving this Carrier and an Arbitration Award
implementing mergering of facilities and employees that came to be through the
Mendicino Protective Conditions, the Board cautioned any future grievants that:
". . . if
their claim is for a violation of the Mendicino Protective Conditions
or its Implementing Agreement, this Board is not the proper forum to hear
such cases .. . ."
The Mendicino Protective Conditions and the New York Dock Protection
Conditions contain identically worded dispute resolution clauses. Under these
circumstances, the Board finds it is without authority to adjudicate this dispute on its
merits.
Form 1 Award No. 13365
Page 3 Docket No. 13290
99-2-97-2-61
AWARD
Claim dismissed.
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 23rd day of February 1999.