Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
SECOND DIVISION
Award No. 13779
Docket No. 13654
03-2-02-2-13
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee
Carol J. Zamperini when award was rendered.
(Brotherhood Railway Carmen Division
( Transportation Communications International Union
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Springfield Terminal Railway Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
"Claim of the Committee of the Union that:
1. The Springfield Terminal Railway Company violated the terms
of our current agreement when they failed to reimburse
Kenneth Gardner for necessary expenses incurred when
obtaining the renewal of a Massachusetts hoisting license and
the required pictures he had taken.
2. That, accordingly, the Springfield Terminal Railway Company
be ordered to compensate Carman Kenneth Gardner in the
amount of $47.88. This is the amount of out-of-pocket expenses
incurred, as a result of this absolute mandate by the carrier."
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.
Form 1 Award No. 13779
Page 2 Docket No. 13654
03-2-02-2-13
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute
involved herein.
Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.
According to the record, the Carrier became aware that the State of
Massachusetts requires anyone operating a forklift, crane, hoist, or the boom on any
of their road trucks to obtain a hoisting license. Initially, the Carrier arranged to
have their employees take the test and paid for the first license.
The Claimant was required to renew his hoisting license in February 2000.
When he requested reimbursement from the Carrier, his request was denied.
The Organization then filed a claim on his behalf asserting that the Carrier
failed to support their contention that the license is required by the State of
Massachusetts. They say since it is mandated by the Carrier, the Claimant should
be reimbursed for his expense. They contend the Carrier has exceeded its
managerial discretion.
The Carrier argues that when they became aware the State of Massachusetts
required the license they arranged for the affected employees to take the test and
obtain the license. They contend they did that at their expense but told the
employees it would be their responsibility to keep it current.
The Board has no evidence to show that the Claimant was exempt from the
licensing requirements of the State of Massachusetts. Therefore, the Carrier did not
abuse its managerial discretion by making it a requirement for the position he held.
As to who should bear the cost, we find it is a requirement of the job and the
employee's responsibility unless it is otherwise addressed in the Agreement.
AWARD
Claim denied.
Form 1 Award No. 13779
Page 3 Docket No. 13654
03-2-02-2-13
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 October 2003.