NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THLRD DIVISION Docket Number MW-19861
Irwin M, Lieberman, Referee
(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
PARTIES TO DISTPUTE:(
(Southern Pacific Transportation Company (Pacific Lines)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
(1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it failed and refused
to allow Track Foreman Enos Garay pay at the specialized gang foreman's rate
and when it failed and refused to abolish the position of Foreman, Extra
Gang #1 and readvertise such position as "Foreman, Specialized Gang" beginning in October 1970 (Syst
(2) Claimant Enos Garay be allowed the "difference in rate of pay
between that of Track Foreman and that of Foreman, Specialized Gang, for 60
days retroactive to January 23, 1971 and all subsequent dates until the position is abolished and re
OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant was assigned to Extra Gang #1 as Foreman. Extra
Gang #1 had been engaged in general track maintenance work.
In October 1970 Carrier added a machine called a Gandy Dancer to the existing
spot tamper equipment of the gang, converting the machine into a multiple tamper
unit. Petitioner argues that since the addition of the new equipment, Claimant
had been functioning as Specialized Gang Foreman, but without the pay for such
position. The Organization relies primarily on Rule 27 which provides that when
an employee is required to fill the position of another employee receiving a
higher rate of pay, he shall receive the rate and also the Memorandum of Agreement effective October
"3. It is understood that the gangs enumerated above to
which title and rate of pay of Foreman, Specialized Gang
shall be applicable, are those gangs subject to the current
agreement which are established by this Memorandum and in
the future may be established, which are regularly assigned
to perform specialized track work, i.e., Division Tie Re
newal Gangs, Division Surfacing Gangs and Division Rail
Laying Gangs.
If in the future the duties of any of these gangs are changed
so as to no longer regularly require the performance of
specialized track work required of Division Tie Renewal Gangs,
Division Surfacing Gangs and Division Rail Laying Gangs, as
determined by Management, the position of foreman of such
Award Number 20013 Page 2
Docket Number MW-19861
"gang shall be abolished and readvertised with title and rate
of pay of Track Foreman; similarly, in the event that a gang
not now assigned to perform said specialized track work should
subsequently be regularly assigned by Management to perform
such duties, the position of Foreman in such gang shall be
abolished and readvertised with title and rate of pay of
Foreman, Specialized Gang."
An examination of the correspondence on the property indicates that
Petitioner bases its claim on the addition of the Gandy Dancer to the spot tamper
equipment and the subsequent activity of the gang described ass " ...we tamp out
of face like a regular surfacing gang
...."
We find no rule support or evidence
in the record to persuade us that the use of particular equipment per se makes
the work of a gang fall into the category of a "specialized gang"; similarly there
is nothing to indicate that track work "out of face" is solely restricted to
specialized gangs. Assuming, arguendo, that the work of Extra Gang #l was identi
cal to that of specialized gangss, the clear language of the Memorandum of Agree
ment does not support the claim. Item 3 of the Memorandum quoted above specifies
that the higher rate will be paid when the specialized work is regularly assigned
to the gang by management. Without: speculation as to the motivation of the parties
when they executed the Memorandum, the clear language vests exclusively in Carrier
the perogative of determining whether or not a gang is to be regularly assigned
as a specialized gang.
off
Since there is no rule support for the claim, the language of the Mem
randum is unmistakeably clear and we have no authority to rewrite rules, the cla.,a
must be denied.
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
y dispute involved herein; and
That the Agreement was not violated.
Award Number 20013 Page 3
Docket Number MW-19861
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
ATTEST:
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 31st day of October 1973,