NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number MW-26272
Herbert L. Marx, Jr., Referee
(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(National Railroad Passenger Corporation
(Amtrak) - Northeast Corridor
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
(1) The Agreement was violated when Bridge and Building employes
from Work Zone 2 performed Bridge and Building work in Work Zone 4 during the
period from May 4, 1983 to July 1, 1983 (System File NEC-BMWE-SD-715).
(2) Because of the aforesaid violation, Messrs. D. Parker, T.
Hudson, E. Pewdo, M. Cameron and W. Robinson shall each be allowed one hundred
fifty-two (152) hours of pay at their respective straight time rates; Messrs.
H. Smart, A. Gardner, J. Gordian, P. Mathews and J. Young shall each be
allowed one hundred twenty (120) hours of pay at their respective straight
time rates; Messrs. E. Hollins, V. Graham, G. Allman, S. Ianello and W. Craven
shall each be allowed forty (40) hours of pay at their respective straight
time rates; Messrs. K. Komarnick, M. Calks and W. Callahan shall each be
allowed one hundred ninety-two (192) hours of pay at heir respective straight
time rates; Mr. S. DiGregorio shall be allowed one hundred eighty-four (184)
hours of pay at his straight time rate and Mr. M. Gibson shall be allowed one
hundred forty-four (144) hours of pay at his straight time rate."
OPINION OF BOARD: This dispute involves a series of incidents in which
employees from Work Zone 2 performed Bridge and Building
work in Work Zone 4. Work Zones 1 through 4 are encompassed in a single
seniority district (the Southern District). Such Work Zones are described in
Rule 14.
The identical issue was extensively reviewed by Public Law Board No.
3932, Awards 1-5. Award No. 1 of that Board states as follows:
...
we find that Rule 14 nowhere prohibits
Carrier from using employees in 'cross-zone'
service. Rule 14 merely designates the different zones and the advertising of positions
within those zones. The Organization has failed
to demonstrate any language prohibiting Carrier
from utilizing employees in 'cross-zone' service
....
In sum, the Organization has failed to
establish, through contractual support or evidence of past practice, that Carrier is prohibited from
zone other than his designated zone."
Award Number 26372 Page 2
Docket Number MW-26272
Upon full review of the Organization's position, this Board finds
nothing to suggest that the conclusions reached by Public Law Board No. 3932
are inapplicable here.
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 J. r - Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 25th day of June 1987.