NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
Form 1 THIRD DIVISION
Award No. 31570
Docket No. MW-31994
96-3-94-3-254
The Third Division consisted
of
the regular members and in addition Referee Robert
Richter when award was rendered.
(Brotherhood
of
Maintenance
of
Way Employes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Union Pacific Railroad Company (former Missouri Pacific
( Railroad Company)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim
of
the System Committee of the
Brotherhood that:
(1) The Agreement was violated when the Carrier assigned Louisiana
Division employes (B&B Gangs 1204, 1208 and 1812) to perform bridge work,
i.e., install bridge ties and routine maintenance, at Mile Post 376.5 on the
Harrihan Bridge, memphis Sub and the Saline River Bridge, Little Rock Sub,
Benton, Arkansas (Carrier's File 930414 MPR).
(2) As a consequence of the violation referred to in Part (1) above,
Arkansas Division B&B employes B. L. Davis, B. R Crutcher, J. W. Wallace,
C. J. Beasley, G. R Jameson, F. P. McDougal, R L. Platt, D. W. Byrd, T. N.
Young, G. W. Queen and C. B. Icing shall each be allowed pay at their
respective time and one-half rates for the total number of man-hours
expended by the Louisiana Division forces, retroactive sixty (60) days from
the date of the initial claim and continuing until the violation ceases."
FINDINGS:
The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and ail the
evidence, rinds that:
The carrier or carriers and the employee or employees involved in this dispute are
respectively carrier and employee within the meaning
of
the Railway Labor Act, la
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.
Form 1 Award No. 31570
Page 2 Docket No. MW-31994
96-3-94-3-254
The facts in this case are not in dispute. The Carrier used Louisiana Division B&B
employees to perform bridge work on the Arkansas Division, which are separate seniority
districts.
The Carrier takes the position that the employees were temporarily transferred
under the provisions of Rule 6. This argument was not made on the property. In
accordance with the Rules of the Board we cannot consider this argument.
The Organization riled this claim as a continuing violation of Rule 2. It further
argues a monetary award is proper in cases such as this where the seniority rules are
violated.
The Carrier argues that the Claimants were fully employed and suffered no
monetary loss. It further argues that the Organization did not meet its burden in showing
that the Agreement was violated.
The Board finds that Rule 2 was violated. To rule no monetary award would give
the Carrier carte blanche to violate Rule 2.
l2
Claim sustained.
ORDER
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that
an award favorable to the Ctaimant(s) be made. The Carrier is ordered to make the Award
effective on or before 30 days following the postmark date the Award is transmitted to the
parties.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 25th day of July 1996.