This dispute concerns the repair of five freight cars set out by a road train crew for defective wheels. The cars were set out at Hinton, West Virginia.
On July 6, 1997, the Carrier directed Carmen from Clifton Forge, Virginia, to transport four pair of wheels on a line of road truck and to re-wheel one of the cars.
On July 17, a Clifton Forge Carman and a Hinton Carman were directed to repair the remaining cars. The Hinton Carman was needed at another assignment, and a second Clifton Forge Carman was sent to the Hinton work site. During this time, according to the Organization, "the Carrier allowed and/or permitted" contractor employees "to assist and perform in repairing [the remaining three cars] by disconnecting air brakes, setting blocks, setting hydraulic jacks, disassembling wheels from truck assembly, replacing wheels, applying and installing roller bearing adapters to the wheel bearings and replacing the freight truck underneath freight car and reconnecting the air brake system."
The Hinton Carman who was assigned elsewhere was the only Hinton Carman. The Organization contends that two additional Clifton Forge Carmen should have been called to complete the repair work.
The Carrier contends (1) there was "no proof' of assistance by contractor employees in the repair work; and (2) "the Carmen named were not proper Claimants as they only have point seniority to protect work at Clifton Forge."
The Board finds no merit in either of the Carrier's defenses. As to whether contractor employees were utilized, this is demonstrated by the Mechanical Superintendent's appeal reply, in which he stated:
As to point seniority, this is not a dispute as to assignment of work to Carmen with seniority at Hinton or Carmen with seniority at Clifton Forge. The claim Form 1 Award No. 13471
challenges use of contractor employees performing Carmen work. Because the Carrier had already utilized Clifton Forge Carmen to commence this assignment, the propriety of Clifton Forge Carmen completing the work, rather than assigning it to other than Carmen, cannot be challenged.
The Board was referred to Second Division denial Award 13189, which includes a Carrier Members' Concurring and Dissenting Opinion. Award 13189 stressed the significance of point seniority, but the situation reviewed therein concerned which Carrier Carmen should have been utilized. It was _not concerned with the use of outside forces performing Carmen's work.
While the claim will be sustained, the appropriate remedy is payment of the claim at the straight time, not the punitive rate.
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.