NATIONAL. RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
TED DIVISION Docket Number NW-22447
Joseph A. Sickles, Referee
(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company
STATEMENT O' CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood
that:
(1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when, on November 20
truck assigned
by
bull
and P-1. 1976~ used etin toRepairman
Truck Driver G.eSg,Coleman LSystem File
1-5(79)/E-265-11 E-265
7.
(2) Truck Driver G. S. Coleman be allowed sixteen (16) hours
of pay at his time and one-half rate because of the violation referred
to in Part (1) hereof."
OPINION OF BOARD: The Claimant was a regularly assigned track driver
with Saturday and Sunday rest
days.
When Carrier
required the use of a truck on a Saturday and Sunday in November, 1976,
it used the services of a track repairman (Sanders) who normally worked
on weekends to drive the truck that Claimant regularly drives, Claimant
asserts a violation of Rule 30(9):
"30(g) Where work is required by the carrier
to be performed on a dap which is not a part of
any assignment, it may be performed by an
available extra or unassigned employe who will
otherwise not have 40 hours of work that week;
in all other cases by the regular employe."
Carrier stresses that trucks are - in reality - tools, such
as locomotives, IBM machines, etc., and it relies upon Awards 21441 and
21774 concerning disputes between these parties. The Claimants contend
that the mentioned Awards are incorrect.
Award 21441 was concerned, to a significant extent, with a
procedural question. But, it concluded, regarding Rule 30(g) among
others - that the rule(s)..."simply do not support Petitioner's claim..."
The claim had asserted a violation when a "...Truck Driver.. .was-not
called and used to drive the truck used by Assistant Roadaaster... to
patrol track ...on certain days."
Award Number
22547
Docket Number
mw-22447
Page
2
Award
21744
was also concerned with the same procedural question,
but it concluded that there was no violation, and the claim (Truck Driver
not used to drive track used by Assistant Roadmaster to patrol and inspect
track) was dismissed "...since no other employe worked overtime or was
called..."
We have considered the Awards cited by the Claimants - as they
relate to precedent Awards on the same property concerning the same issue.
It is a well recognized principle of this Hoard that once an
issue is decided between the parties, it should not be disturbed, absent
a finding that the prior Awards) is palpably erroneous. There is, of
course, a sound basis for that doctrine as it tends to guarantee a basic
predictability of labor relations between the parties. This doctrine
applies even if a subsequent authority would have reached a different
conclusion had it considered the matter in the first instance. This, of
course, is a classic test of that principle and, regardless of our
individual predilictions we gather, from a close reading of the two prior
Awards - and making some reasonable inferences - that the factual
circumstances are similar. Here - as in Award
21744 - no
one was "called
in" or 'Eworked overtime" in place of the Claimant.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Hoard, 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
u,
1934;
That this Division of the Adjustment Hoard has jurisdiction
over the dispute involved herein; and
That the Agreement was not violated.
A W A R D
Claim dismissed.
ATTEST:
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADfUSTMENf BOARD
By Order of Third Division
day of September
1979.