Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 29091
THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-28894
92-3-89-3-303
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Herbert L. Marx, Jr. 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 assigned and/or otherwise permitted Boston 6 Main
on April 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, 1987.
(2) The Carrier also violated Article IV of the May 17, 1968 National
Agreement when it did not give the General Chairman advance written notice of
its intention to contract said'work.
(3) As a consequence of the aforesaid violations, Truck Driver R. R.
Hartsgrove shall be allowed twenty-four (24) hours of pay at his straight time
rate of pay and fifty-nine (59) hours of pay at his time and one-half overtime
rate of pay."
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 Claimant seeks compensation for work performed on the Claim dates
by an employee under a different Agreement. The Claimant contends that he
should have been assigned to the work.
In its submission, the Carrier raises a number of procedural issues
as to the Organization's failure to meet time limit requirements under the
Claim handling procedure. As noted by the Organization, these issues were not
raised in correspondence on the property and thus may not be considered by the
Board.
Form 1 Award No. 29091
Page 2 Docket No. MW-28894
92-3-89-3-303
However, the Carrier did advise the Claimant, in response to his
Claim, as follows:
"Per Rule 6-a of our current agreement your
name was removed from the rosters of the Maine
Central Railroad on October 31, 1986 as you have
not performed service for the Maine Central Railroad during the previous two years. As you are no
longer an employee of the Maine Central Railroad
your claim is without merit and is hereby denied."
The Organization now argues that the Claimant's name was improperly
removed from the roster, because he had received payment for a Claim during
the cited two-year period. This, according to the Organization, should have
started a new two-year period (during which the Claim herein arose).
The difficulty with this is that no timely protest was made as to the
removal of the Claimant's name from the roster. The Carrier provides a copy
of an October 31, 1986 letter to the Claimant notifying him of this action.
While the Organization points out that this letter was not exchanged during
the Claim handling procedure, the fact remains that the Carrier did refer to
its action in the initial Claim reply.
Thus, the question of whether the Claimant was properly removed from
the roster is not before the Board. In the Claimant's resulting status as
former employee, the Claimant has no standing to press the Claim as presented
herein.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
000,
Attest:
Nancy J.^ -Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 23rd day of January 1992.