NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number MW-25664
George S. Roukis, Referee
(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(The Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company
(Southern Region)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
(1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it assigned Car
Department employes instead of Bridge and Structures Department employes to
replace a 'cat walk' over the water tank area at the Pipe Shop On November 11,
12 and 15, 1982 (System File C-TC-1503/MG-3804).
(2) Because of the aforesaid violation, B&B Mechanics K. Brown, 1.
Wiley, D. Farnsworth, H. Clay, R. E. Adkins, W. P. Steele, C. Perry and C.
Hanshaw shall each be allowed pay at their respective rates for an equal
proportionate share of the twenty-four (24) man-hours expended by Car
Department forces in performing the work referred to in Part (1) hereof."
OPINION OF BOARD: The Organization contends that Carrier violated the
Controlling Agreement, particularly Rules 66(a) and 66(c)
when Carrier assigned a Shop Craft employe (Carman) to construct and/or repair
and install a wooden cat walk over the water tank in the Pipe Shop building at
Huntington, West Virginia. The work, according to the Organization, was
performed on November 11, 12 and 15, 1982. The organization asserts that work
of this character is contractually reserved to employes holding seniority in
the.Bridge and Structures Group as evidenced by the specific protective
language in Rule 66(c). It avers that the cat walk was attached to the super
structure (overhead beam) of the building, which is definable covered work
under Rule 66(c). Rule 66(c) reads as follows:
"(c) In carrying out the principles of
Paragraph (a), bridge and structures forces will
perform the work in which they are entitled under
the rules of this agreement in connection with
the construction, maintenance, and/or removal
of bridges, tunnels, culverts, piers, wharves,
turntables, scales, platforms, walks, right of
way fences, signs, and similar buildings or
structures, except where such work is performed
by other employes under other agreements in
accordance with the rules of such agreements or
past practice in the allocation of such work
between the different crafts, including work
performed by shopmen in connection with the
maintenance of shops, enginehouses, and other
facilities within shop limits and shop work done
at Barboursville Reclamation Plant and at other
points in connection with maintenance of way
and structures tools, equipment, and materials."
Award Number 25929 Page 2
Docket Number MW-25664
Carrier argues that it was permissible under Rule 154 of the C&0
Shop Crafts Agreement for the Carmen to perform this work. It asserts that
Rule 154 gives the Carmen craft the right to perform various carpentry duties
in the shops and yards, except for work generally recognized as Bridge and
Building Department, and avers that this type of work was historically
performed by Carmen. It maintains that on November 12 and 15, 1982, the
assigned Carman merely constructed scaffold boards and applied cleats to
replace boards in the overhead area at the steam regulator station without
affecting the structural integrity of the Pipe Shop building. In effect, it
contends that the platform was a portable device. Moreover, it disputes the
Organization's contention that work was performed on November 11, 1982, since
this date according to Carrier was a holiday observed by Shop Forces.
In our review of this case, we concur with the Organization's
position. Simply stated, we cannot in the absence of a compelling showing
that Carmen consistently performed this type of work disregard the clear
language of Rule 66(c). It reserves the work of constructing and maintaining
platforms, walks, and similar structures to Bridge and Structure Forces.
Since the disputed work herein was generally more akin to the basic work set
forth in this rule, it was incumbent upon Carrier, as part of its affirmative
defense, to prove that it was performed by the Carmen in accordance with Rule
154 and demonstrable past practice. The Organization had persuasively
established that Rule 66(c) was pertinent and the burden thus shifted to
Carrier. Since the record does not contain evidence depicting any
identifiable specific incident where Shop Craft forces performed work of this
character, we must conclude that it rightfully belonged to the Organization.
On the other hand, we must agree with Carrier regarding the time involved in
performing this work and find that it was performed on November 12 and 15,
1982. The Organization has not rebutted Carrier's averment that November 11,
1982 was a holiday for Shop Forces. Accordingly, and upon the record we will
sustain the claim for sixteen (16) hours.
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 violated.
Award Number 25929 Page 3
Docket Number MW-25664
A W A R D
Claim sustained in accordance with the Opinion.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
Attest:
Nancy J. er - Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 26th day of February 1986.