NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
Award Number 25460
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number MW-25305
Herbert L. Marx, Jr., Referee
(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Detroit, Toledo and Ironton Railroad Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
(1) The Agreement was violated when, during the period April 12 through
May 21, 1982, both dates inclusive, the Carrier used an employe (Mechanic J.
Hiberra) of the Grand Trunk Western Railroad Company to repair and maintain 'tie
machines' assigned to Extra Gang 'A' (Carrier's File 8365-1-142).
(2) Because of the aforesaid violation, Mechanic-Truck Driver J. E.
Wallace shall be allowed pay at the applicable mechanic truck driver's rate for
all time expended by Mechanic J. Hiberra in performing the work referred to in
Part (1) hereof.
OPINION OF BOARD: This dispute concerns the use of a Mechanic on equipment leased
by the Carrier from April 12 through May 21, 1982. The leased
equipment, a tie machine, was accompanied by a mechanic from the Lessor Railroad.
Also assigned to the machine was a Mechanic-Truck Driver, represented by the
Organization. As to mechanical repair performed on the equipment during its
period of lease, a statement in the record from the Carrier's Mechanic Truck
Driver reads as follows:
"Repairs made on machines during the dates mentioned
...were done by both (a Mechanic employed by the lessor)
...and myself as a team."
The Organization argues that its Scope Rule, as well as applicable
seniority rules, prohibit the use of an employe not holding seniority within the
provisions of the Agreement between the parties. The Carrier replies that the
Agreement does not prohibit the use of an employe specifically designated to
accompany leased equipment.
The Organization claims that another employe, qualified as a MechanicTruck Driver, should be
mechanic in performing repair and maintenance work on the tie machine.
The Board finds that both the Organization and the Carrier have painted
the dispute with too broad a brush. As to the Carrier's position, the Board
finds no support for its view that, simply because it has leased equipment, it is
permitted without limit to utilize an outside employe on work which would otherwise
be performed by its own employes. As to the Organization's view, significance
must be given to the fact that the regularly assigned mechanic-Truck Driver was
utilized on the work here in dispute. The statement submitted by the Organization
says that the two Mechanics worked 'as a team'. The Carrier states that its own
Mechanic-Truck Driver simply worked "under the directions' of the Lessor's Mechanic.
Aside from reference to working 'as a team", the Organization offers no evidence
as to actual work performed by the Lessor's Mechanic.
Award Number 25460 Page 2
Locket Number MW-25305
Under these circumstances, the Board need not resolve the broad contentions
set forth by the Organization and the Carrier. The mere presence of the Lessor's
Mechanic is not a rule violation. There is no dispute that the Carrier did assign
its own Mechanic-Truck Driver to the work in question. The claim for pay on
behalf of a second Mechanic-Truck Driver is speculative, since there is no demonstrat
proof that the assigned Mechanic-Truck Driver did not perform the repair and
maintenance work as assigned. Absent a showing that two Mechanics either were
required or actually performed the work, there can be no finding in favor of the
claim of a second employe.
This conclusion is reached, as noted above, without accepting the Carrier's
general premise as to its right to utilize outside employes in any instance where
equipment is leased.
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 Agreement was not violated..
A
W
A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
Attest:
Nancy ver·- Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 23rd day of May 1985.,