NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
Murray M. Rohman, Referee
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES
ELGIN, JOLIET AND EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
Claim of the System Committee of the
Brotherhood that:
(1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when, on or about
June 15, 16, 22, 23 and July 6, 7, 1963, it assigned or otherwise
permitted a Motor Car Repairman to perform Garage Serviceman's
work at Gary, Indiana (System Case No. SG-17-63) (Carrier's File
WM-25-63).
(2) Garage Serviceman M. Beranek now be allowed twentyfour (24) hours' pay at his time and one-half rate because of the
violation referred to in Part (1) of this claim.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: The claimant was regularly
assigned to the position of Garage Serviceman at Gary, Indiana, with a
work week extending from Monday through Friday (rest days were Saturday and Sunday).
Motor Car Repairman J. J. Sheetz, who performed the work here involved during the assigned hours of his position, was regularly assigned as
such at Gary, Indiana, with a work week which included Saturday and
Sunday.
The factual situation was partially described in the following quoted
excerpt from the letter of claim presentation:
"On or around June 15, 16, 22, 23, 1963, there was no garage
service man working in the garage at Gary, Indiana. Hence,
Motor Car Repairman J. J. Sheetz worked four (4) hours each day
referred to above performing garage service man's work, such as
servicing and refueling equipment, repairing tires and parking
trucks. Mr. Sheetz also performed the same type of garage service
man's work for five (5) hours on July 6, and three (3) hours
on July 7, 1963. This, we believe, constitutes a violation of our current agreement, and particularly, the classification rules."
Each of the dates set forth in the aforequoted excerpt is either a
Saturday or a Sunday.
[867
14137-21
106
There is no merit in the
Organization's position and the instant claim;
accordingly, they should be denied by the Board.
OPINION OF BOARD:
This claim originated at the Gary Motor Car
repair shop as a result of an alleged violation by the Carrier in assigning a
Motor Car Repairman to perform Garage Serviceman's work. The work
which was alleged to have been performed on the dates enumerated in the
claim occurred either on a Saturday or Sunday.
The Claimant is the regularly assigned Garage Serviceman with a workweek from Monday through Friday. The Motor Car Repairman, who allegedly performed the work in question, has a regularly assigned workweek
which includes Saturday and Sunday.
On the dates in question, a vacancy existed in the position of Garage
Serviceman due to the incumbent having bid off the position to another
bulletined assignment. Said vacancy was subsequently filled on July 12, 1963.
However, the Carrier conceded that the work was performed by the Repairman
on the enumerated dates, as indicated in the following quote:
"During the vacancy on this position, it became necessary at
times to have certain garage serviceman's work performed, but due
to the fact that this position was vacant, a motor car repairman
was assigned to perform said duties."
It is also admitted that this position was neither abolished nor blanked.
Two rules are in issue in this dispute, namely, Rule 28(b) and Rule
56 III (e), both of which are hereinafter quoted:
"RULE 28.
(b) Where work is required by the Carrier to be performed on
a day which is not a part of any assignment, it may be performed
by an available extra or unassigned employe who will otherwise not
have forty (40) hours of work that week; in all other cases by
the regular employe."
"MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT EXECUTED AT
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, THIS 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER,
1960, BETWEEN THE ELGIN, JOLIET AND EASTERN
RAILWAY COMPANY AND THE BROTHERHOOD OF
MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES.
It is agreed between the parties hereto that Rule 56 III (e)
is hereby abrogated in its entirety and the following substituted
therefor:
Garage Servicemen's work shall consist of the following
in and about their respective shop headquarters or terminal area (as defined below) or any other location at which
Garage Servicemen regularly may be assigned in the future:
(1) washing and polishing motor vehicles; (2) checking
and providing motor cars, motor vehicles and various pieces
of equipment serviced and maintained in the Maintenance
of Way Department with proper fuel, lubricants, tire repairs, air and water, except such refueling or lubrication
of critical points as may be necessary for an operator to
complete a day's work. Garage Servicemen shall also be
14137-22
107
assigned to (3) general housekeeping and security duties
in and about their respective shop headquarters and at
such other locations as the duties of motor car repairmen
and garage servicemen are performed, and (4) may also be
assigned to assist the respective mechanics outlined in the
foregoing paragraphs. Garage Servicemen shall be required
to provide only such mechanic's tools as are agreed upon
from time to time by the General Chairman and the Vice
President-Personnel.
NOTE: Terminal area is defined as the respective yard limits
of East Joliet Yard, Kirk Yard, the Gary Mill Division
and any other yard at which a Garage Serviceman
is in the future regularly employed:
BROTHERHOOD OF
MAINTENANCE OF ELGIN, JOLIET AND EASTERN
WAY EMPLOYES RAILWAY COMPANY
By lsl D. L. Woods By lsl Paul H. Verd
General Chairman Vice President-Personnel"
It is recognized that the Repairman was neither an extra nor unassigned
employe within the intent of Rule 28 (b). Therefore, within the context of
this rule, the regular employe, the Claimant herein, was entitled to be used
to perform said work.
Furthermore, under the provisions of Rule 56 111 (e), an operator is
permitted to refuel or lubricate critical points as may be necessary for him
to complete a day's work. Here, again, the work performed on the various
dates in question did not involve the exception contemplated in the aforementioned rule.
Accordingly, the Board finds that Rule 28 (b) of the effective Agreement
was violated.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the
whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:
That the parties waived oral hearing;
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
That the Agreement was violated.
AWARD
Claim sustained.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of THIRD DIVISION
ATTEST: S. H. Schulty
Executive
Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 8th day of February 1966.