Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 27289
THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-26503
88-3-85-3-234
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Dana E. Eischen when award was rendered.
(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Maine Central Railroad Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood
that:
(1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it used junior foremen
to perform overtime service on August 6 and 13, 1983 instead of using Foreman
D. A. LaPointe who was senior, available and willing to perform that service
(System File MW-84-4).
(2) Because of the aforesaid violation, Foreman D. A. LaPointe shall
be allowed nineteen (19) hours of pay at his time and one-half rate (total of
$346.83)."
FINDINGS:
The Third Division of the Adjustment Board upon the whole record and
all the evidence, finds that:
The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this
dispute are respectively carrier and employes within the meaning of the
Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the
dispute involved herein.
Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.
The present case involves the assignment by Carrier of certain Track
Foremen headquartered at Canton, Maine to operate a Jordan Spreader on successive Saturdays in July
On the last two Saturdays in July, 1983, Carrier assigned to train
with Operator W. R. Lowell, Claimant whose seniority started April 26, 1979.
On Saturday, August 6, 1983, Carrier assigned Track Foreman Fairfield, seniority date November 26, 1
Tingley, seniority date June 21, 1979, to train and observe with Operator
Lowell. On each of these occasions, the Track Foreman was assigned to assist,
Form I Award No. 27289
Page 2 Docket No. MW-26503
88-3-85-3-234
observe and train with fully qualified Operator Lowell, with the aim of becoming qualified on th
Claimant, who was also at that time Assistant General Chairman for the Organization, filed the prese
by the junior employes on August 6 and 13, 1983. In this Claim, it was
asserted that the junior Track Foremen were "no more qualified than me" and
maintained that liis seniority entitled him to be assigned on August 6 and 13,
1983, to assist on the Jordan Spreader.
By letter of February 17, 1984, Carrier's Chief Engineer denied the
Claim, pointing out that Claimant, as well as, Fairfield and Tingley were all
"trainees" and not fully qualified on dates in question. In further handling
the Claims also were denied until final appeal to the Board.
The June 20, 1984, appeal letter to Carrier's highest designated Labor Relations officer contain
interest:
"While the Carrier contends all three employees are
considered 'trainees,' it is our contention that
D. A. LaPointe, as the senior employee, should have
been called to work with Foreman Lowell on August 6
and 13, 1983, thereby having the opportunity to further his training and experience on the Jordan Sp
The only rule mentioned in handling on the property was Rule 21(A)
raised by Carrier in its original denial. Under Rule 21(A) seniority preference for assignment is co
operator on Claim dates. Accordingly Rule 21(A) provides no support for his
Claim. Even if Rule 3, which was belatedly raised for the first time in the
exparte submission, were considered before the Board standing alone it would
not support this Claim. Finding no support in facts or contact we must deny
the present Claim.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
Attest:
6~z
Q!5C0C:__0
Nancy J. r - Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 12th day of August 1988.