The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds 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, as approved June 21, 1934.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
This case involves multiple claims which were consolidated for hearing before the Board. All claims are similar in that they involve cross-zone service. For convenience of analysis, the claims may be divided into two groups.
The first group of claims, filed on October 19, 1991 by Claimant J. Crandley on behalf of himself and two other employees, involves an overtime assignment and alleges a violation of Rule 55 regarding preference for overtime. Claimants J. Crandley, W. Hayes and E. Bailey all had established and held seniority within the Carrier's Electric Traction Department at the time of the events in question. The Claimants were headquartered within Work Zone 4 on the Philadelphia Division, assigned to the territory encompassing Mile Post 21.0 (to the West), Mile Post 6.4 (to the South) and Mile Post 76.0 (to the North).
On August 30, 1991 the Carrier assigned Track Department Forces C. Kulesa, M. Davis and J. Hardison from Work Zone 4A, the Atlantic City line, to perform the work of setting signals for the C&S Department at the Shore Interlocking in Work Zone 4. The Organization contends that employees Kulesa, Davis and Hardison each expended ten hours at the time and one-half rate in connection with the setting of signals for the C&S employees. The Organization argues that this assignment violated Rule 55, and that Claimants Crandley, Hayes and Bailey each are entitled to ten hours at the punitive rate. Form 1 Award No. 32219
By letter dated December 11, 1991 the Acting Division Engineer denied the claim on the basis that the employees utilized to perform the disputed work were assigned to "track travel" the equipment from the Atlantic City Line, their home subdivision, to Shore Interlocking, the site of the work project, because there was no assurance that the equipment would make it to the job site. The Carrier denied that it was contractually obligated to relieve the subject employees from an assignment that commenced in their own work zone simply because the work to be performed involved overtime in another work zone. The Carrier also took exception to the amount of time claimed, asserting that the amount of work time at Shore Interlocking was far less than the ten hours claimed.
The Carrier's rationale for the assignment was that a multicrane was required to support a C&S project in Zone 4 near Philadelphia. Because the closest multicrane was located in Zone 4A, the Carrier gave preference for the overtime assignment to the senior qualified employees in Work Zone 4A where the equipment was located. The employees from Work Zone 4A moved the equipment to the work site and provided the necessary support for the project.
The second group of claims involves work performed on straight time and alleges a violation of Rules 14 and 15, as well as the October 1, 1987 Electric Traction Work Zone Agreement. Claimants W. G. Fossett, J. Glessner, J. Gricol and L. Troy submitted letters dated March 13,1992 requesting 32 hours at the straight time rate. Their claims asserted that the Carrier violated the Agreement when it assigned Wilmington employees to perform work within the Philadelphia work zone on January 28, 29, 30 and February 7, 1992.
Claimants W. G. Fossett, J. Glessner, J. Gricol and L. Troy all had established and held seniority within the Carrier's Electric Traction Department at the time the dispute arose. They were headquartered at the Penn Coach Yard, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and assigned to the territory that encompassed the main line from Holmes at Mile Post 76, to Greentree at Mile Post 21.3, to Darby Creek at Mile Post 6.3, including the Electrified Branch Line within the area.
The Acting Division Engineer denied the claims of Messrs. Fossett, Glessner, Gricol and Troy on the grounds that Rule 15 does not prohibit the Carrier from using employees in cross-zone service. He asserted that the Electric Traction Department had historically and consistently used employees in cross-zone service, particularly in the area cited in the claims. Form 1 Award No. 32219
The Carrier's rationale for the assignment was that it had an Electric Traction Line gang headquartered in Wilmington with a tour of duty from 11:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M., but no gang was headquartered in Philadelphia with those hours. The Carrier therefore used the gang from Wilmington to perform service near Philadelphia, during their regular tour, while traffic was lightest. No Rule or Agreement prohibits such assignment of employees to work in multiple work zones.
The threshold issue to be decided in each of the above claims is whether the Carrier violated the cited Rules and/or Agreement by assigning employees to cross-zone service.
In both groups of claims the Organization asserts that the Rules prohibit crosszone assignments. The Public Law Board No. 3932, Award 1, in which the Organization also cited Rule 55 and Rule 14, covering "working zones", to support its position that the Carrier is obligated to assign work on the basis of those zones. The facts in that case are very similar to those of the instant case. Public Law Board No. 3932 denied the claim and made the following findings: