STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: On April 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23, 1965, Assistant Extra Gang Foreman Louis J. DeFronze performed the customary and traditional work of an extra gang foreman when he directed the activities of the operator of Spot Tamper PB-10 in performing the work of raising (surfacing) track at various locations on the Albany Main and, in addition thereto, made various reports relating to said work.
On each of the above mentioned dates, the claimant was cot working with or under the supervision of any foreman.
For this service, the claimant was compensated at the assistant extra gang foreman's rate of pay.
The issue involved in the instant case is identical to the issue involved in the dispute adjudicated by this Division in Award 12971. Although the Carrier agreed to settle twenty-eight (28) similar claims on the basis of the decision of this Division in Award 12977, it would not agree to a similar settlement with respect to the instant claim.
Claim was timely and properly presented and handled by the Employes at all stages of appeal up to and including the Carrier's highest appellate officer.
The Agreement in effect between the two parties to this dispute dated November 15, 1943, together with supplements, amendments and interpretations thereto is by reference made a part of this Statement of Facts.
CARRIER'S STATEMENT OF FACTS: During the five working day period involved in this dispute, claimant Louis J. DeFronze was assigned as an Assistant Extra Gang Foreman in Extra Gang No. 214, with headquarters at Schenectady, New York. During the period covered by the claim, the personnel assigned to the gang consisted of Extra Gang Foreman J. Moffre, ,two Assistant Extra Gang Foremen, i.e., claimant DeFronze and Stephen Mazzarella, and eight (8) trackmen.
During the period covered by the claim, claimant DeFronze was assigned by Foreman Moffre to work with certain members of the gang in utilizing a spot tamper (PB-10), in maintaining the track structure between Altamont and Voorheesville, points within the assigned limits of responsibility of the gang involved.
OPINION OF BOARD: The fundamental issues involved in this case are the same as those considered in our Award No. 16039, which arose out of a similar dispute between these parties under the same Agreement. Accordingly, we find Award No. 16039 controlling in this case, despite variations in dates, names and locations, which do not warrant repetitive discussion.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, 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
For the same reasons that are fully and specifically enunciated in Carrier Members' dissent to Awards 15804 and 15805, Dockets MW-16108 and MW-16109, which are, by reference, incorporated herein, we dissent to these Awards.