NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
Form 1 THIRD DIVISION Award No. 29956
Docket No. MW-29945
93-3-91-3-329
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Hugh G. Duffy when award was rendered.
(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Consolidated Rail Corporation
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the
Brotherhood that:
(1) The Agreement was violated when the Carrier assigned Surfacing Gang Foreman P. T. Dominic, Machi
Operators R. S. Jamison and P. Vitale to perform
trackman's work repairing FRA defects (replacing
bolts, drilling holes, gauging, replacing ties,
etc.) at Thompson Yard in Duquesne, Pennsylvania on
January 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19,
22, 23, 24, 25 and 26, 1990 (System Docket MW1153).
(2) As a consequence of the aforesaid violation, furloughed Trackmen G. R. Bargerstock, G. Lowmiller
and R. L. Beam shall each be allowed pay at the
appropriate straight time and overtime trackman's
rates for an equal proportionate share of the total
straight time and overtime hours expended by
Messrs. Dominic, Jamison and Vitale performing
trackman's work from January 2 through 26, 1990."
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 employe 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.
On seventeen dates in January 1990, the Carrier assigned
machine operators to perform duties normally performed by Trackmen.
Form 1 Award No. 29956
Page 2 Docket No. MW-29945
93-3-91-3-329
The work involved the repair of FRA track defects at Thompson Yard
in Duquesne, Pennsylvania.
The Organization contends that the Claimants, who were
furloughed Trackmen, should have been recalled from furlough to
perform the work. The Carrier contends that it has the right under
the Agreement to temporarily assign employees to different classes
of work.
The applicable provisions of the Agreement read in pertinent
part as follows:
"Rule 1. Scope, Paragraph 4:
The listing of the various classifications in
Rule 1 is not intended to require the establishment or prevent the abolishment of positions in any c
the maintenance of positions in any classification. The listing of a given classification
is not intended to assign work exclusively to
that classification. It is understood that
employees of one classification may perform
work of another classification subject to the
terms of this Agreement.
Rule 19 - Assignment to Higher or Lower Rated
Positions
An employee may be temporarily assigned to
different classes of work within the range of
his ability. In filling the position which
pays a higher rate, he shall receive such rate
for the time thus employed, except, if assigned for more than four (4) hours, he shall
receive the higher rate for the entire tour.
If assigned to a lower rated position, he will
be paid the rate of his regular position."
In Third Division Award 29582, between the parties, the Board
concluded that this Agreement language permitted the carrier to
temporarily assign work outside of current classifications. A
similar conclusion was reached in Third Division Award 26761, where
the Board stated:
"Nevertheless, the Board finds that the reading of Rule 1 sanctions the Carrier's action
in this particular instance. Rule 1 refers to
'primary duties', not exclusive duties, of
Form 1 Award No. 29956
Page 3 Docket No. MW-29945
93-3-91-3-329
each classification. The fourth paragraph is
obviously designed to allow some leeway among
classifications which might not otherwise be
clearly provided."
We concur with these Awards, and observe that while the
Carrier had the option of going to the furlough list for work of
less than thirty days duration, it also clearly had the right under
the Agreement to temporarily assign employees from other job
classifications to do the work. We thus conclude, based on the
record before us, that the Carrier did not violate the Agreement
when it made the assignments in question, and we will therefore
deny the claim.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
Attest:
~~2~t<__~c~_.,e^^-`-
Catherine Loughrin - Interim Secretary to the Board
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 17th day of December 1993.