Docket No. MW-17533
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
(Supplemental)
Arthur W. Devine, Referee
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES
ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
Claim of the System Committee of the
Brotherhood that:
(1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it failed and
refused to compensate Track Department employes J. M. Logan,
D. E. Barnwell, R. F. Wileman, Bruce Pope and 0. J. Black at appropriate B&B rates of pay for services performed on September
16, 21, 28; October 13, 14, 18, 19, 1965. (System Case 211 MofW/
SLS-27-T-65)
(2) (a) Claimant J. M. Logan be allowed the difference between what he should have been paid at the B&B Foreman's rate of
pay and what he was paid at the Track Foreman's rate of pay for the
services performed on September 16, 21 and 28, 1965.
(b) Claimant 0. J. Black be allowed the difference between
what he should have been paid at the B&B Foreman's rate of pay and
what he was paid at the Track Foreman's rate of pay for the services
performed on October 13, 14, 18 and 19, 1965.
(c) Claimants D. E. Barnwell, R. F. Wileman and Bruce
Pope be allowed the difference between what they should have been
paid at B&B carpenter's rate of pay and what they were paid at
track laborer's rate of pay for services rendered on September 16,
21, 28; October 13, 14, 18 and 19, 1965.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: On September 16, 21, 28 and
'October 13, 14, 18 and 19, 1965, the Carrier assigned the claimants named
within Part (2-c) of the Statement of Claim to assist a B&B crew perform
the work of mixing and pouring concrete for bridge pedestals at Brush Creek
near Hackleburg, Alabama. On September 16, 21 and 28, 1965, the aforementioned claimants were supervised by Claimant J. M. Logan and on
October 13, 14, 18 and 19, 1965, they were supervised by Claimant 0. J. Black.
The work performed by the claimants is of the character which has
historically been recognized as work belonging to and exclusively performed
OPINION OF BOARD:
The claim herein is that two Track Foremen be
allowed the difference between what they would have been paid at the Bridge
and Building Foreman's rate and what they were paid at the Track Foreman's
rate for the dates specified in the claim, and that three laborers be paid the
difference between Bridge and Building carpenter's rate of pay and what they
were paid at track laborer's rate for services rendered on the dates involved.
Under Rule 2 of the Agreement the Track Department constitutes one
sub-department and the Bridge and Building Department constitutes another,
and the seniority rights of all employes are confined to the sub-departments in
which employed except Group 1, Roadway Machine Department. The Roadway
Machine Department is not involved in our present dispute. Thus, employes
in the Track Department have no rights to work in the Bridge and Building
Department and employes in the Bridge and Building Department have no
rights to work in the Track Department.
The work performed by the Track Department employes and constituting
the basis for the claim herein was in connection with maintenance work on a
bridge located at Brush Creek, Alabama. This was work in the Bridge and
Building Department, and properly accrued to employes of that Department.
It was not work of the Track Department.
The Petitioner describes the work performed by the track laborers as-
" - ` " the claimant track department employes performed the
work of placing the sand, gravel, cement and water, in their proper
proportions and sequence, into the concrete mixer, and then, after the
concrete was mixed, they transported and poured it into the forms
for the bridge pedestals."
In the handling of the dispute on the property the Petitioner contended
that the track forces were assigned to work with and in a bridge gang to do
exactly the same type of work that the bridgemen were doing, and in support
of its contention submitted a letter from foreman l.ogan reading in part-
"We done every kind of work B&B Foreman and carpenters done
except using trowel finishing off cement.
We transported sand, gravel and cement to mixing machine and
put in Hoper [sic] of mixing machine and helped put cement to
foundation where it was finished."
On the property the Carrier contended that the work performed by the
trackmen was the transporting of sand, gravel and cement to the mixing
machine. In its submission to this Board the Carrier contends that Bridge
and Building Department employes performed all the skilled work including
the mixing and pouring of concrete. As this represents an affirmative defense
by the Carrier, it was incumbent upon it to come forward with evidence in
support thereof, which it has not done.
We agree with the argument by and on behalf of the Petitioner that the
handling of sand, gravel and cement to the concrete mixer and from the
concrete mixer to the bridge pedestal forms was
an integral part of the
repairs to the bridge. We cannot agree with the Carrier that the work involved
was in the category of transporting material to the work site.
16702 3
The claim will be sustained.
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
Gated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of October 1968.
Keenan Printing Co., Chicago, 111. Printed in U.S.A.
16702 4