NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number MW-20712
Irwin M. Lieberman, Referee
(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(The Akron, Canton and Youngstown Railroad Company
STATEMENT OF CLnIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
(1) The Lgreement was violated when the three positions of
Track Patrol roreman with headquarters respectively at Bluffton, New Washington and Medina were abol
1972.
(2) The Agreement was furt::~x violited when the duties and work
of the aforesaid positions was thereafter assigned to and performed by other
than Track Patrol Foremen.
(3) Messrs. u. C. Drucka~il.ler, Gorge Shepherd and N. S. Berentz
each be reimbursed for the monetary loss suffered from the date of abolishment of their positions of
OPINIGN .JF oa=J: Petitioner
cjntends that
;.he Agreement was violated by
Carrier unilaterally abclishing three positions of Track
Patrol Fcreman on December 15, 1972; it is illeged that the Agreement was
furthe- violated when the duties of the Track Patrol Foremen were thereafter
asbigned to au Assistant Roadmaster, a non-.,::.tract employe. It is also
claimcd that tLe Agreement was abrogated in violat_on of the Railway Labor
Act by t'-.e abolition of the positions.
Tt.e history of the positions in question is not germane to the
disputt·· er,ept the. Carrier decided =t c id not wish to
continue the
three
position. o.hich its( been c.stablis'red '-, as Agreement dated April 22, 1969.
Carrier admits the it appointed
~-1
A;_'stz·:·: Roadmaster, coincident with
the abcl:tie., ·:f the j~bs herein, for .:he p.:pose of compliance with F.R.A.
rules requi-_ug certPin track inspections, reports etc. By agreement with
the Organization, da`ed May 1, 1?73, t're pes_tion of Track Inspector was
establi^qhed to per°o.m ail the r-q~'r~d track inspections and reports and
the Assistan= Rcadmaster position wes aoel:shed. Carrier insists that no
wor- perfcrred ly the Track Patrol Foremen was required of the Assistant
Roadmaster
(n-
the Tra^k ?nspector
Fu'
sequ^ntly) and all such work was
reLu:red to tl.a sc=ti,)n gangs.
=_~_ticnor ct;z~s ;.'.: t C,.rr=er c·,--celled or abrogated the Agreement
r:
April 22. 150,9 by a~oiis:._, he p.:itions and redistributing the
work = hod elrec,' to have performcr ';y th.. Track Patrol Foreman; it is
asserteu ti." suc:. action could only take Once after negotiation and mutual
1
Award Number 20726 Page 2
Docket Number NW-20712
agreement. It must be noted, however, that there is nothing in the
record of this case to indicate that the Agreement was cancelled or abrogated in the first instance.
on this issue were sustained, it would mean that Carrier could never
abolish a job without cancelling the Agreement; obviously this would be
unsound and contrary to the terms of the Agreement. Rule 5 (c) specifically provides for reductions
jobs herein was accomplished in conformity to the provisions of that rule.
Petitioner argues that the work in question cannot be removed
from the scope of the Agreement without negotiation and cites a series of
Awards in support of this proposition. The thrust of these citations is
well expressed in Award 10871:
"It ~aimot be disputed that the prL.ary purpose of
a c-llective bargaining agrccneat is to preserve to
the Organiza,ion and its membars thu positions and
work of the particular craft involve., and this Board
is committed to the prize-iple that the work of positions covered by an Agreement belongs to employe
subject to that Agreement and may not properly be
performed by employes of another craft."
We certainly find no fault in that reasoning (see also Awards 1296,
3606, 27358 and many others). However, on numerous occasions the Board has
also held that management has the inherent right, :a the absence of legal
or contractual prohibitions, to abolish or rearrange the work of positions
(Awards 13933, 14738, 9806, 14493, 2035°_, et al): there are no Agreement
restrictiDns in this dispute. We then Tust come to the argument of the
Organization chat the work in question was assigned to the Assistant Roadmaster, who was not covered
assertion by the Organization, what :s ^la·.nly needed to establish the validity of the conte
proof to substantia a the allegation in the. face of Carrier's denials. We
must c)--'ud^ therefore, that tte jcbc ;ere <'.jlished in conformity with the
Agree:ac-n t and teat `he work was retu-nr~ to
,.ae
section gangs since no
Lvi
dence to the contrary was presented, rut :I s reason the claim must be denied.
FINDINGS; The Third Division of the L4:ostm-:it Board, upon the whole record
and all -he evidence, finus -nd 'u-.ds:
That the parties waived oral hearing;
Award Number 20726 Page 3
Docket Number MW-20712
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 not violated.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
ATTEST:
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 16th day of May 1975.