NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number MW-20154
Joseph A. Sickles, Referee
(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Burlington Northern Inc.
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
(1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it assigned section
forces instead of
B&B
forces to perform the work of installing a culvert
at MP 17 plus 1250 feet on Subdivision 6 (System File MW-84/12/10/71).
(2) B&B Foreman John Saltarelli, Carpenter N. S. Emerson, Carpenter Helpers L. E. Titus and
each be allowed eight (8) hours' pay at their respective straight-time
rates because of the violation referred to within Part (1) of this claim.
OPINION OF BOARD: On November 4, 1971, Carrier assigned Section Forces
to install a corrugated metal culvert. The Organization asserts that B&B forces should have
been done by B&B forces on the former Northern Pacific and cited Rule 69
(c):
"It is the intent of this Agreement to
preserve pre-existing
rights accruing to employes covered by the Agreement as they
existed under similar rules in effect on the CB&O. NP, GN
and SP&S Railroads prior to the date of the merger; and shall
not operate to extend jurisdiction or Scope Rule coverage to
agreements between another organization and one or more of
the merging Companies which were in effect prior to the date
of merger."
The Organization urges that the above quoted language, and certain other contractual provisions,
accrues to certain classes of employees within the Maintenance of Way group.
On the property, and before this Board, Carrier has cited various
rules which, it urges, justified distribution of the work to Sectionmen,
and has stated that Rule 69(c)
"...
is merely a preservation of pre-existing rights as between Maintenance of Way employees and empl
by other organizations on the merging railroads. It does not preserve
practices as to the division of certain items or work between classes of
employees within the Maintenance of 'day."
Award Number 20231 Page 2
Docket Number MW-20154
A number of procedural issues are presented, concerning burden of proof, failure to cite specific ru
on evidence not considered on the property, etc. Because of our disposition of this Docket, it is no
We must interpret Agreement rules as they are made. We may
not read into rules, that which is not contained, or add to or detract
a meaning which clearly was not intended by the parties. See Award
6365. A cold reading of Rule 69(c) would seem to support the Carrier's
version of its import. But, we do concede that the language could be
read to support the Organization's contention of its meaning.
A thorough review of the handling on the property and the entire record as a whole fails to convince
party's contention. We note diverse conclusions, without information
which would allow us to determine which conclusion is supported by the
facts. The Organization has the burden of proof by a preponderance of
the evidence. We do not find that the evidence of record here preponderates to the benefit of the Or
Second Division Award 6365. We do not feel that said Award resolves
the question before us. Accordingly, under this record, we will dismiss
the claim for failure of proof.
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 claim will be dismissed.
A W A R D
Claim dismissed.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
ATTEST: .
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of April 1974.