NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number MW-20660
Joseph A. Sickles, Referee
(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
(1) The Agreement was violated when Class A Machine Operator
Randy Powell, Jr. and Class B. Machine Operator C. R. Corbin were allowed
only four hours' pay on December 8 and 15, 1972 and on January 19 and
February 1, 1973.
(2) The Agreement was violated when Class A. Machine Operator
R. T. Sparks and Class B. Machine Operator Hubert Morrison were allowed
only four hours of pay on December 8 and 15, 1972 and on January 19, 1973.
(3) The Agreement was violated when Class B Operator Kenneth
Fetters was allowed only four hours of pay on December 15, 1972 and on
January 19 and February 1, 1973.
(4) Each of the claimants identified in Parts (1), (2), and
(3) above now be allowed twelve (12) hours' pay at their respective straighttime rates. (Carrier's F
OPINION OF BOARD: On the dates in question, Claimants failed to complete
eight (8) hours of work. They (Machine operators)
assert that they were precluded from completing their tours due to incle
ment weather. On the other hand, Carrier alleges that there was work avail
able for Claimants on the days in question, but that they "requested" to be
returned to Camp Headquarters.
On the property, Claimants relied upon Rule 16 (a):
"(a) Regularly established daily working
hours will not be reduced below eight.(8) for five
(5) days per week to avoid making force reductions,
except by mutual agreement, but this number of days
may be reduced in a week in which holidays occur
within the five (5) days constituting the work week
by the number of such holidays."
The Board feels that this dispute must be resolved on the basis
of burden of proof as developed on the property.
The initial claim contended that the Agreement fails to provide
for suspension of time for inclement weather. In reply, Carrier stated
that:
Award Number 20621 Page 2
Docket Number MW-20660
" ..the employees were not laid off on account of
inclement weather. The men present were offered a
complete days work, but refused and requested to be
taken back to camp headquarters on each of the days
mentioned in your letter. It was for the convenience
of the employess that less than eight hours were
worked
...."
Although Claimants responded to the above-cited letter, and discussed the applicability of Rule
recitation.
Again, in the final denial letter, Carrier repeated that Claimants requested to be returned to C
work to be performed.
Claimants never replied to the final denial letter until the
matter was submitted to this Board.
This Board has consistently determined that it may only consider
matters which have been raised on the property. Moreover, the party asserting the violation must pro
full days of work, it was incumbent upon Claimant a to submit probative evidence to the contrary. Se
The Organization, in its Ex Parts and Rebuttal Submissions, presents argument which contains a c
identity of the work which was allegedly refused, inasmuch as all employees
appeared to be employed on the same project, et c. However, these matters
should have been submitted on the property, rather than directly to this
Board.
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
Award Number 20621 Page 3
Docket Number MW-20660
That the claim be dismissed.
A W A R D
Claim dismissed.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADTUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
ATTEST:
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 21st day of February 1975.
,av