NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number MW-25848
Robert W. McAllister, 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 used Conductor-Pilot
Reed to perform trackman's work March 21 through March 25, 1983 and March 28,
1983 at Newport News Yard (System File C-TC-1760/MG-4011).
2. Because of the aforesaid violation, furloughed Trackman E. Desco
shall be allowed forty-eight (48) hours of pay at the trackman's straight time
rate."
OPINION OF BOARD: This Claim for 48 hours pay at the straight time rate for
the Claimant is based upon the allegation that Conductor
Pilot Reed hooked rail tongs and performed other duties to assist a Burro
Crane Operator March 21 through March 25 and also on March 28, 1983. Ini
tially, the Carrier took position that any unplanned, incidental, unassigned
and voluntary work constituted no Agreement violation. The Carrier subse
quently characterized the Organization's claim as vague because there was no
accompanying details of any asserted Trackman's work performed by Conductor
Pilot Reed other than "hooking rail tongs." The Carrier also contended that
it was inconceivable that Reed could have hooked rail tongs for 48 hours. The
Carrier, therefore, said the Claim was excessive. The on-the-property han
dling further revealed the Carrier took the position that machine operators
frequently handle rail, scrap, and ties independently without assistance from
other employees.
This Board finds the record establishes Conductor-Pilot Reed did perform Trackman's duties when
In essence, the Carrier argues the Organization has failed to sustain
its burden of proof because it did not indicate the amount of time Reed spent
hooking the rail tongs and did not specify what "other duties" he allegedly
performed. The record does not support a finding Reed performed any "other
duties." However; as we have already indicated, it does establish Reed did
hook rail tongs, and this finding is supported by the Carrier's own answers to
the Organization's on-the-property assertions. The fact the Organization was
unable to show how much of Reed's time was involved does not alter our
holding. If, as the Carrier has asserted, such Burro Crane assignments did
not contemplate nor anticipate any additional Maintenance of Way Labor, it has
failed to explain why it was necessary for Conductor-Pilot Reed to assist the
Award Number 26343 Page 2
Docket Number MW-25848
Burro Crane Operator for six working days. It seems significant to this Board
that the Carrier, in contending Burro Crane Operators are able to handle rail,
scrap, and ties without assistance, qualified that assertion with the word
"frequently." There is simply no evidence of record supporting the Claim the
work performed by Reed was unnecessary. Accordingly, we will sustain the
Organization's Claim the Agreement was violated by Reed performing Trackmen's
duties. There is no support for the Claim Reed performed forty-eight (48)
hours of such work. We will, therefore, sustain Part 2 of the Claim to the
extent of two (2) hours for each day Conductor-Pilot Reed performed Trackmen's
duties.
FINDINGS; The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving the
parties to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon, and upon the
whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:
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.
A W A R D
Claim sustained in accordance with the Opinion.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
Attest:
Nancy J. De er - Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 8th day of June 1987.