CHICAGO, BURLINGTON AND QUINCY RAILROAD
COMPANY
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: The claimants, Messrs. John E. Riley and H. A. Love, were regularly assigned to the position of section laborer at Langdon and Watson, Missouri, respectively.
On April 14, 15, 19, 20, 21, 22, 26, 27, 28, and on May 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9 and 10, 1955, Claimant Riley was assigned to and performed the duties of an Electric Welder Helper (Rail-end) in assisting Electric Welder L. A. Poe in the performance of electric welder's work. For this service, Mr. Riley was paid therefor at the section laborer's rate of pay.
Similarly, on May 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 78, 19 and 20, 1955, Claimant Love was assigned to and performed the duties of an Electric Welder Helper (Rail-end) in assisting this very same Electric Welder in the performance of electric welder's work. While so assigned Claimant Love was paid at the section laborer's rate of pay.
OPINION OF BOARD: Petitioner maintains that Claimants should have received the Welder Helpers', and not Section Laborers', rate of pay for services performed on certain specific days in April and May 1955. It is undisputed that on those days, Claimants, pursuant to the instructions of their foremen worked with an Electric Welder named L. A. Poe while he was performing welding duties. The theory of the claim is that Claimants were doing Welder Helper work at those times and are entitled to the pay rate of that position.
The record contains a statement by Mr. Poe specifically setting forth the nature of Claimants' work on the days in question and affirming that they satisfactorily performed the work of Welder Helpers at those times. We regard this statement as particularly compelling and entitled to great weight. Mr. Poe, a Senior Electric Welder with considerable experience in his field, directly handled the welding operations involving the Claimants and is fully qualified to know what the work of an assistant welder entails. There is no showing that his statement was the result of fraud or improper collusion or that the supervisory employes who have commented on the situation were actually present at the time the work was performed.
While there is some question as to whether or not Claimants were properly assigned to welder helper work, we are satisfied that the record viewed in its entirety, particularly in the light of Poe's statement, requires an affirmative award. From Claimants' standpoint, they were assigned to the work under consideration by competent managerial authority, their foremen; they did the work for more than four hours on each of the claim dates and Rule 45 is controlling under the circumstances.
As Carrier points out in its original Submission, it does appear that Petitioner neglected to comply with the time limit requirements of Article V, Section 1(a) of the August 21, 1954 National Agreement. The claims are continuing ones and only April 14 and 15, 1955, the first two days of Claimant Riley's claim, are affected by this point. We perceive no valid reason for considering other objections that were first voiced by Carrier Member at the panel argument before the Referee. 9965-15 87