Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT
BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Award No. 35636
Docket No. SG-35336
01-3-99-3-237
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Ann
S. Kenis when award was rendered.
(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Consolidated Rail Corporation
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
:
"Claim of behalf of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad
Signalmen on the consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail):
Claim on behalf of J. Farrell, R.J. Ford, J.T. Hale, D.J. Neumann, J.T.
Rucker and F.D. Smith, for payment of 12 hours each at their respective
double-time rates, and for Claimants J.T. Rucker and F.D. Smith, for
payment of hours each at their respective time and one-half rates, account
Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement, particularly Article
IX, Part A, Section 5, when it required signal gang employees from
Seniority District 16 to work more than 50 miles away from their seniority
district on Seniority District 19 on August 8, 15, and 16, 1997 and denied
the Claimants the opportunity to perform this work. Carrier's File No. SG
998, General Chairman's File No. RM-3085-64-1297, BRS File Case No.
10932-CR"
FINDINGS
:
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.
Form 1 Award No. 35636
Page 2 Docket No. SG-35336
01-3-99-3-237
Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.
At issue in this case is whether the Carrier violated Article IX, Section 5 of the
pertinent Agreement by authorizing a construction gang from Seniority District 16 to
work on Seniority District 19. The Rule reads in relevant part as follows:
".
. . Where work is to be performed more than fifty(50) miles within
another prior right seniority district, the headquarters of the construction
position will be advertised within that seniority district."
The dispute centers around how the "50 miles" referred to in Article IX, Section
5 should be calculated. In the Organization's view, the 50 miles should be based on
railroad miles, while the Carrier argued that it should be based on geographic miles. No
evidence in the form of practice or bargaining history was offered by either party to
support their respective interpretations.
The Organization, as the moving party, bears the burden of proving the elements
of its claim. Based on our review of the record as a whole, the Board is unable to conclude
that the Organization met its evidentiary burden. There is simply no probative evidence
in the record from which we can conclude how the "50 miles" in Article IX, Section 5
should be calculated. As a result, we have no alternative but to deny the claim.
AWARD
Claim denied.
ORDER
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that
an Award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order
of Third Division
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day of August, 2001.