THIRD DIVISION
(Supplemental)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
(1) The Carrier violated the effective Agreement when, in lieu of calling and using B&B Welder Winfield S. Haddow to perform bridge inspection work in connection with the installation of drainage facilities at Military Avenue on the Santa Monica Air Line during overtime hours on April 16, 17, 18, and 19, 1959, it assigned and used B&B Plumber Carl Davenport, a junior employe to perform said work.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: The currently effective seniority roster shows that both the claimant and Mr. Carl Davenport have established and hold seniority in the Bridge and Building Sub-department as follows:
The Claimant has been regularly assigned to the position of B&B Welder, Group B, since October 15, 1948, whereas Mr. Davenport has been regularly assigned to the position of B&B Plumber, Group B, since November 1, 1958. Each was regularly assigned to a 40-hour work week, consisting of five days, eight hours each, Monday through Friday, with Saturdays and Sundays as designated rest days.
In deference to the position of the carrier as to the amended claim involved in the instant dispute, the carrier requests that its position with respect to the claim be sustained in view of the specific provisions of the controlling agreement.
OPINION OF BOARD: It is the opinion of this Board that the agreement involved has not been violated.
This claim arises on behalf of Winfield S. Haddow, a welder by reason of Carrier's assigning Carl Davenport, a plumber, to perform bridge inspection work during overtime hours on April 16, 17, 18 and 19 of 1959. It is admitted that Haddow holds seniority as a welder since October 15, 1948 and that Davenport holds seniority as a plumber since November 1, 1958. Neither hold seniority as a bridge inspector, but the Organization contends that Haddow should, as senior employe, have had the assignment as bridge inspector. They assert that he is also shown to be qualified and available.
The Carrier asserts that Rule 10 authorizes them to assign the work to Davenport, who is admittedly a junior employe, albeit in another seniority district. Rule 10 reads as follows:
It is Carrier's contention that the emphasized portion authorizes them to assign the work involved to Davenport absent a showing that such assignment was a gross abuse of discretion." In support of such contention they cite Award 7810 (Larkin) as follows: 12480-14 879
Rule 3(a) of the parties' Agreement of September 1, 1949, provides that:
If the language of the parties' Agreement were different, we might sustain this claim. Many such claims have been supported by the Board; but in all such cases brought to our attention the factual circumstances were different and different language was used. Where the parties have specified that 'the Management is to be the judge' where matters of ability, merit and fitness are considered, we are bound by that language. Only upon a showing of gross abuse of discretion should we overrule management's decision in these matters, where the parties have said that Management shall be the judge. This record does not establish proof of serious abuse."
It is our opinion that Award 7510 is controlling. We find nothing in the record that Carrier has abused the discretion vested in them by the last provision of Rule 10. We therefore hold that the agreement has not been violated.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving the parties to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon, and upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:
That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;
That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and