Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
SECOND DIVISION
Award No. 13660
Docket No. 13560
01-2-00-2-3 9
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee
Herbert L. Marx, Jr. when award was rendered.
(Brotherhood Railway Carmen Division
( Transportation Communications International Union
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Delaware and Hudson Railway Company, Inc.
( (Division of CP Rail)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
"Claim of the Committee of the Union that:
1. The Delaware and Hudson Railway Company violated the terms of
our current agreement in particular Letter of Understanding No. 1
(Me-Too Clause) when they arbitrarily denied the Organization's
request to amend the agreement through application of this letter.
2. That, accordingly, the Delaware and Hudson Railway Company be
ordered to provide the level of benefits enjoyed by the TCU/Clerks
and apply it to the TCU/Carmen's Agreement, as set forth in Letter
of Understanding No. 1 dated May 11, 1999, to be made effective
January 1, 2000."
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.
Form 1 Award No. 13660
Page 2 Docket No. 13560
01-2-00-2-39
Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.
In connection with a Memorandum of Agreement setting revised contractual
terms, the Carrier and the Organization ("TCU/Carmen") agreed to the following
Letter
of
Understanding No. 1:
"In the event the D&H executes an agreement for the period commencing
January 1, 2000 and ending December 31, 2001 with any other unions
representing its employees that contains improvements in the areas of
compensation and benefits that are greater than those set forth in this
Memorandum of Agreement, it is agreed that such improvements will be
incorporated into the D&H/BRC (Carmen) Agreement with the D&H,
unless such improvements) was made in consideration for modifications)
in the Company's Agreement with the other Union which benefits the
D&H."
Subsequently, the Carrier and the TCU/Clerks formulated a Memorandum of
Agreement that included a Supplemental Sickness program. This Supplemental
Sickness program is identical to that already included in the TCU/Carmen Agreement.
The Organization (TCU/Carmen) notes, however, that the TCU/Clerks Agreement
continues to include a provision for up to ten sick leave days, a benefit not previously or
currently included in the TCU/Carmen Agreement. In addition, there is no evidence
that the granting
of
the Supplemental Sickness program to the TCU/Clerks was in
"consideration for modifications."
As a result, the Organization argues that Letter
of
Understanding No. l becomes
applicable, stating as follows:
"The benefit
of
two (2) supplemental sickness benefit plans [provided for
TCU/Clerks] should now be afforded to the TCU/Carmen. The ten (10)
sick days that the TCU/Carmen do not currently have at this time should
be incorporated into our agreement as an additional benefit."
The Board cannot find justification for this position in the "Me Too" Letter of
Understanding No. 1. That document specifically refers to "benefits" provided any
other Organization in current (2000-2001) negotiations that are "greater than those set
forth in" the Memorandum
of
Agreement with the TCU/Carmen. The relevant
Form 1 Award No. 13660
Page 3 Docket No. 13560
01-2-00-2-39
"benefits" negotiated with the TCUICIerks is the Supplemental Sickness program. This,
of course, is not "greater" than that already provided pursuant to the TCU/Carmen
Agreement.
The Organization argues that this leaves the TCU/Clerks with two supplemental
sickness plans, while the TCU/Carmen enjoy only one. Nothing in the "Me Too"
Agreement, however, suggests that the remedy sought by the Organization is required
of the Carrier. To repeat for emphasis, Letter of Understanding No. 1 is limited to
matters currently negotiated and does not include an overall comparison of the terms
of one Agreement with another.
AWARD
Claim denied.
ORDER
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that
an award favorable to the Claimants) not be made.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 11th day of December, 2001.