Form 1 Award No. 35937
Page 2 Docket No. MS-36000
02-3-00-3-197
per hour for May 28,1998, for the performance of duties outside the
scope of his position.
(d) This claim is presented in accordance with Rule 41 of the
Agreement between the parties and should be allowed."
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.
Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.
At the time of the incident that gave rise to this case, the Claimant held a Crew
Caller position headquartered at One Penn Plaza, Newark, New Jersey. On June 9,
1998, the Claimant filed a claim for eight hours pay at the overtime rate because he was
directed to contact six Locomotive Engineers and notify them they were required to
complete and return medical forms to the Carrier. The Claimant contends that this task
was the responsibility of Management and was beyond the scope of his duties. The claim
was denied. The Claimant further contends that the denial of his claim did not meet the
requirements of Rule 41(a) of the parties' Agreement and the claim is payable on that
basis alone.
Rule 41- CLAIMS FOR COMPENSATION - GRIEVANCES reads, in relevant
part, as follows:
"When claims or grievances have been presented in accordance with this
Paragraph (a), including exception (1) and (2), and are denied, the Carrier
shall, within sixty (60) days from the date same is tiled, notify whoever
filed the claim or grievance (the employee or his representative), in writing
of the reasons for such disallowance. If not so notified, the claim or
grievance will be allowed as presented, but this shall not be considered as
a precedent or waiver of the contentions of the Carrier as to other similar
cases or grievances."
Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Award No. 35937
Docket No. MS-36000
02-3-00-3-197
The Third Division consisted
of
the regular members and in addition Referee
Rodney E. Dennis when award was rendered.
(William J. Halstead
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(New Jersey Transit Rail Operations
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
"(a) The Carrier violated the New Jersey Transit Clerks Rules
Agreement, particularly Rules 1, 19(f), or 19(g), 25, 28, 31 and
other rules when it assigned the responsibility
of
notifying
Engineers
of
no longer being medically qualified to perform service
if
they did not turn in there [sic] MD-40's by 11:59 PM on May 31,
1998, (see attached SCAT messages), a function long established as
managerial, to Crew Caller, William J. Halstead, during his tour
of
duty on Thursday, May 28, 1998.
(1) It has long been established that, the use
of
agreement
employees to monitor agreement employees in there
[sic] compliance with state and federal laws has been
deemed as an unacceptable practice, and in fact, New
Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc.'s Time Table,
General Special Instructions C-2 and C-4, clearly
define the monitoring
of
this issue as a Managerial
function and a compliance with state and federal law,
without notice at all.
(2) However, should the management
of
the Carrier wish
to circumvent its responsibility in such matters, then
we have to ask that these responsibilities be added to
the Crew Callers' positions in accordance with the
applicable Rules (28 and 31)
of
our Agreement with
the Carrier.
(b) The Organization
is of
the opinion that, the duties performed by
Mr. Halstead on May 28, 1998 were not a normal part
of
his job
description, and therefore, the performance
of
such duties were in
violation
of
the current Rules Agreement.
(c) The Organization now requests that Claimant, W. Halstead, be
compensated an additional 8 hrs. pay at the overtime rate
of
$28.46
Form 1 Award No. 35937
Page 3 Docket No. MS-36000
02-3-00-3-197
Despite the advice of the Organization that his claims lack merit, the Claimant
progressed multiple claims of the same or similar nature as the instant one. He
presented the same arguments on the merits, as well as the same procedural arguments
in each instance.
The Board reviewed the instant claim, as well as Third Division Awards 35555,
35556, 35557, 35558 and 35819 involving the same parties and has concluded that this
claim is identical to those and should likewise be denied. In the Awards cited above the
Board presented a complete and comprehensive analysis of each case. The Board can
see no reason why it should repeat the same reasoning in response to the many identical
cases presented by the Claimant. We therefore deny this 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 20th day of February, 2002.