This dispute arose when the Claimants, three Mechanical Department Electricians employed by the Carrier in its Glendive, Montana, Mechanical Facility, protested that the Carrier, in January 2007, abolished four positions which previously had been assigned to the Claimants. The Organization asserts that the abolishment of the Electrical positions, and reassignment of work to the Machinist craft, violated the Agreement. The crux of the claim is that because the positions were abolished, the work, which includes locomotive inspections, maintenance, and running repairs, is now performed by employees of another craft.
The Carrier argues first, based on the Organization's procedural error, that the matter should be dismissed. In the alternative, the Carrier alleges that, as a result of changed circumstance, work was reassigned to new positions and, therefore, was not lost; and that the work was incidental, simple, and not craft specific. The Carrier argues it retains the right to utilize the workforce to meet its needs, and that this right allows management the flexibility to create positions where needed based on Shop demands. The Carrier states electrical work in the Diesel Shop had diminished to the point that it required only a few hours per day and electrical work had shifted to the Main Shop to which the positions were transferred.
The Carrier submits that the job descriptions for Electricians remain exactly the same, except for Leadman positions, and that that the Organization did not lose any positions when changes were made. The Carrier asserts that no one was furloughed, that the number of Electrician positions remained constant, and that a like number of positions were posted when job swaps were made. The Carrier states it simply offered new positions where Electricians were needed and, rather Form 1 Award No. 14039
than reassigning employees on a daily basis from one area of the Shop to another, it replaced old jobs with new jobs.
In response to the Carrier, the Organization asserts that the Claimants were bumped to other positions and displaced junior Electricians to the point where a number of previously open electrical positions became occupied, and that the Carrier neither produced new job bulletins nor identified new job assignments. The Organization produced a copy of a job bulletin for one of the abolished positions which describes the position of an Electrician, required to perform Electrician duties, and requires that
On this point, the Organization argues, "And that Craft Agreement is with the Electrical Craft" without further explanation. The Organization further claims that the work neither is incidental nor simple, and alleges that the Carrier's characterization of the work as such somehow violates the Agreement, but offers no specific proof on this point. Finally, the Organization argues that the work was craft specific and specifically bulletined to the electrical craft.
It is challenging to determine some of the facts of this claim because there are three Claimants and allegedly four positions were abolished. In the end, the record does not demonstrate that the Claimants sustained any loss of wages and, while electrical work was transferred to the Main Shop where it was needed, the Claimants retain jobs and continue to perform needed Electrician work.
Although the Organization contends that work performed by Electricians was transferred to Machinists, the Carrier demonstrated that job descriptions for Machinist positions contain the identical maintenance and running repairs language cited by the Organization. The Board finds that the Organization failed to identify precisely what work and how much work allegedly was transferred and failed to present evidence that such work exclusively belongs to IBEW-represented Form 1 Page 4
"We have held that a bulletined duty, in and of itself, is not evidence of an exclusive reservation of work." See Third Division Award 15695.
"By not addressing Carrier's contentions that the central repair work normally took only a few hours, and by not complying with the provisions of the Rule requiring that the work be timed in questionable cases, the Organization puts the Board in an untenable posture. It forces a quasi-appellate forum to make findings of facts . . . an exercise beyond our jurisdiction. Similarly, without the time study mandated by the Rule, a process obviously designed to avoid exactly this situation, the Board is compelled to engage in determining disputed facts. With no reliable basis for finding either what was normal repair time or how much time was actually consumed in this instance, the Board must dismiss the Claim for failure of proof and failure to exhaust administrative remedies." Form 1 Award No. 14039
Again, the Board finds that the record does not reflect that the Organization performed time studies or brought the issue to the Shop Committee as required by the Agreement. The parties have a duty to follow the procedures for resolving disputes as outlined in the Agreement. The Board finds that the Organization failed to do so in this case. Accordingly, the claim must be dismissed.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an Award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.