C:\MYDOCU~1\SCHEDU~2\3-28650.htm

Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 28650 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. SG-27229 90-3-86-3-306 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Martin F. Scheinman when award was rendered. (Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

(Consolidated Rail Corporation

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim on behalf of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railr Corporation (Conrail):

On behalf of N. C. Speidel and J. B. Blickley for 32 hours at their respective pro rata rate of pay, account of Carrier violated APPENDIX 'X' of the current Agreement when it permitted or allowed Seniority Roster No. 7 employees to work on Seniority Roster No. 8 district, on March 14, 20, 21 and 22, 1985." Carrier File: SD-2216. 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 o appearance at hearing thereon.

In March 1985, Carrier directed repairman on Seniority District No. 7 to correct several crossing protections in Seniority District No. 8. As a result of Carrier's actions, the Organization filed a Claim, alleging that the work in dispute should have been performed by District No. 7 Signalmen. Carrier denied the Claim. The Organization appealed the Claim in the usual manne The Organization argues that Carrier violated the basic structure of the seniority system by the assignment of employees. from Seniority District No. 7 to perform work on Seniority District No. B. It asserts that Carrier is not entitled to unilaterally assign employees where they would cross seniority Form 1 Award No. 28650 Page 2 Docket No. SG-27229 90-3-86-3-306 districts without mutual agreement. The Organization points out that Carrier's argument that the raised on the property. In the organization's view, Carrier's actions constituted a violation of the compensated for this loss of work opportunity. It asks that the Claim be sustained in its entirety. Carrier, on the other hand, asserts that the Claim was not progressed to this Board under the requirements of Section 3, First (i) of the Railway Labor Act. It maintains that the Claim was not presented to the proper official at the first level. the appropriate C&S Supervisor. The Claim should have been submitted to the New Jersey Division Supervisor but was improperly submitted to the Harrisburg Division Supervisor. Thus, Carrier concludes that the Claim was improperly filed. On the merits, Carrier argues that it acted properly when it assigned Seniority District No. 8 employees to perform work in Seniority District No. 7. It asserts that the Organization's reference to Appendix K does not prohibit the use of employees another seniority district. In this particular case, Carrier argues, hazardous conditions existed th to fill the positions that would normally perform the work without any bids from qualified employees, it argues that it appropriately assigned employees in Seniority District No. 7 to perform the work. Thus, Carrier insists that it acted appropriately under the particular circumstances. Additionally, Carrier notes that all of the Claimants were fully employed during the period the disputed work was performed. Since no Claimant suffered any monetary loss thereby, Carrier maintains that even if an Agreement violation is found, After a careful review of the record evidence, we are convinced that the Claim must be denied. Under the particular circumstances of this case, hazardous conditions existed whereby it was determined that road crossings without protection needed to be repaired expeditiously. We do not consider Carrier's actions in this case to be violative of the Agreement. In this instant dispute, while an emergency, per se, did not exist, hazardous conditions existed that apparent should the crossing protections remain uncorrected for any substantial period of time. For employees in Seniority District No. 8 to cprrect the road crossings. As was noted in Award 24271: Form 1 Award No. 28650 Page 3 Docket No. SG-27229 90-3-86-3-306
"The failure of Carrier to formally declare the existence of an emergency does not change our findings. It is not dispositive. A safety hazard clearly existed whether or not an emergency was declared. Carrier's obligations to correct that hazard were just as great even in the absence of such a declaration. Stated simply, extreme conditions required abnormal remedial measures."
Additionally, we further note that Seniority District No. 8 employees are also covered under the applicable Agreement. As such, Carrier did not go outside the coverage of the Agreement when employees from Seniority District No. 7 were assigned to perform the work in dispute on March 14, 20, 21, and 22, 1985. For all of the foregoing reasons, the Claim must be denied in its entirety.
A W A R D
Claim denied. NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD By Order of Third Division Attest: ancy J. -Executive Sec etary Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 29th day of January 1991.