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, as approved June 21, 1934.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
On all claim dates, the Organization alleges, and the Carrier does not dispute. with the exception of operating the crane on December 24 and 25, 1990, that Foreman DePue operated a B&B locomotive crane equipped with semi-fixed pile driving leads during his regular tour of duty.
The Carrier argues that Foreman DuPue operated the crane no more than 30 percent of the time.
The Organization disputes this assertion. As a result of Foreman DuPue's operation of the B&B locomotive crane equipped with semi-fixed pile driving leads, the Organization filed claims on November 6, 1990, January d, and February 27, 1991, each requesting ten hours pay for 32 work days alleging the Carrier violated Rules 1 and 3 by utilizing Foreman Dupue instead of an unnamed senior furloughed Class I Machine Operator.
The Organization believes the unnamed Claimant is entitled to perform the disputed work by virtue of the Scope Rule and by virtue of the seniority and classification Rules establishing B&B Foreman and Machine Operator as separate seniority classifications.
The Organization argues that crane operation clearly falls within the Scope Rule and therefore, the Carrier was obliged to assign the operation of the crane to a !Machine Operator rather than the Foreman. The Organization also argues that the Carrier is obliged by the Agreement to advertise positions and vacancies per Rule 3. which requires the Carrier to advertise and award all positions and vacancies within 30 days previous to or within 20 days following the date they occur. Form 1 Award No. 31763
The Carrier defends the claim by rst taking issue with a procedural aspect. According to the Carrier, the Organization is estopped from progressing these claims because it initiated essentially the same claims during 1990 and 1991 and failed to progress the claims to a Board in accordance with Rule 26(d) of the .agreement. Moreover, the Carrier argues that the claims were not timely submitted in accordance with Rule 26(a) because DePue began operating the B&B locomotive crane in 1985. Therefore, the Organization failed to timely protest his operation of the crane by submitting claims in November 1990, January and February 1991.
The Carrier also argues that sporadic use of employees working across classification lines is permitted under Paragraph (4) of the Rule which reads:
Next. the Carrier argues that the operation of the equipment in question requires special qualifications and that an offer to advertise the position apparently discussed during the negotiation of the claim on the property, does not bind the Carrier to bulletin the position and therefore, it should be ignored by this Board as terms of a settlement discussion.
Finally, the Carrier questions whether an appropriate damage remedy exists because there is an unnamed claimant. The unnamed senior furloughed employee arguably may or may not have been available for work and furthermore, the Organization failed to establish that the unnamed claimant would have been qualified to operate the crane in question.
After considering the arguments of the parties, we find that we must deny this claim. As an appellate body, we are obliged to decide claims and grievances based on the arguments made by the parties on the property. Here, the Carrier raises an issue of whether the unnamed claimant would be qualified to perform the work in question. Form I Award No. 31763
The Organization, as the moving party, bears the burden of proving that a specific claimant is qualified to perform the work in question. Here, according to the Carrier, the particular crane arrived on the property in 1985. The only person ever qualified to operate this particular crane was B&B Foreman DePue. The Organization argues that. a crane is a crane, and in any event. the Carrier is obliged to train Machine Operators on new equipment. This may, in fact, be true. However. the issue before the Board is whether the claimant, in this case an unidentified claimant. was qualified to perform the work in question.
The Organization, by failing to name a specific claimant and by failing to prove that, in fact. that particular claimant was qualified to perform the disputed work. failed its burden of proving the elements of its claim.
Therefore, since the record is devoid of any information indicating that a particular Machine Operator was qualified to perform the work in question. we must deny the claim.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.