Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 29219
THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-28482
92-3-88-3-285
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Gil Vernon when award was rendered.
(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Soo Line Railroad Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
(1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when Crew 602 was reduced
below the minimum B&B crew consist beginning April 20, 1987 (System File
8481/800-46-B-285).
(2) As a consequence of the violation referred to within Part (1)
hereof:
'...
:1aimant Sollom shall now be reimbursed for
the equivalent of eight (8) hours pay at the pro
rata rate for each day of violation beginning on
April 20, 1987, and continuing until such time as
the Carrier restores Crew 602 to the proper minimum
force; and, he shall have all overtime, vacation,
fringe benefits, and other rights restored which
were lost to him as a result of the above violation."'
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 basic facts are not disputed. On April 19, 1987, a Carpenter
left B&B Crew 602 to fill a position in B&B Crew 614. This created a vacancy
for a carpenter on the Crew 602 pending the bulletining and filling of the
position. The exact. timing concerning the filling of the vacancy is not
known. The fact there was a vacancy caused the crew to temporarily fall below
the minimum crew level as set forth in Appendix G. It states in pertinent
part:
Form 1 Award No. 29219
Page 2 Docket No. MW-28482
92-3-88-3-285
"Appendix G
Minimum B&B Crew Consist
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT between the Soo Line
Railroad Company and its employees represented by
the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees.
With the consolidation of the former Duluth,
South Shore and Atlantic Railroad Company and
the Minneapolis, St. Paul and Sault Ste. Marie
Railroad Company into the merged Soo Line Railroad
Company, and the subsequent integration of Bridge
and Buiding Department employees' seniority on a
system basis, it is agreed that the minimum B&B
crew requirements in effect on the former
Minneapolis, St. Paul and Sault St. Marie Railroad Company will apply throughout the Soo Line
System. This minimum is as follows:
1 Foreman
1 Assistant Foreman
2 Carpenters
2 Helpers
The number of Carpenter Helpers employed in a gang
will not exceed the minimum of Carpenters and
Assistant Foremen employed in that gang. It is
understood that this does not apply to floating
crews.
This Agreement does not modify or in any manner
affect schedule rules or agreements except as
specifically provided herein and will become
effective June 1, 1961 and continue in effect
thereafter subject to change in accordance with
the provisions of the Railway Labor Act as amended."
Predicated on the fact that the crew was below its minimum consist for some
period of time, the Organization filed a claim on behalf of the Claimant, who
at the time was in furlough status as a carpenter helper. The central theme
t.. the Carrier's response is that the Claimant has no seniority as a carpenter
and was not qualified as a carpenter. Therefore, they argue he did not stand
to be called for the vacancy in question.
Form 1 Award No. 29219
Page 3 Docket No. NW-28482
92-3-88-3-285
The Board must agree with the Carrier that a claim cannot be sustained since the Claimant was in
Claimant by either depriving him of work opportunities, other rights and privileges to which he was
was not a carpenter and had no seniority as such. Moreover, there is no rebuttal to the Carrier's as
Carpenter position under Rule 6(e). The Organization's only response was to
argue that if the vacancy had been filled by promoting another carpenter
helper, the Claimant would have been recalled from furlough. This is not only
speculative but irrelevant to the issue presented by this case.
In summary, the claim must be dismissed since the Claimant, as evidenced by this particular reco
question and therefore he is not a proper Claimant.
A W A R D
Claim dismissed.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
Attest:
Nancy J er - Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 7th day of May 1992.