Form 1 Award No. 35938
Page 2 Docket No. MW-35999
02-3-00-3-196
per hour for February 27, 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.
In Third Division Award 35937, the Board expressed its opinion on the merits and
procedural arguments presented by the Claimant in a long list of the same or similar
cases. The text of that Award applies equally as well to this case.
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.
Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Award No. 35938
Docket No. MS-35999
02-3-00-3-196
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 12:01 AM on March
1, 1998, (see attached SCAT messages), a function long established
as managerial, to Crew Caller, William J. Halstead, during his tour
of duty on Friday, February 27, 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 February 27, 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