Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Award No. 37444
Docket No. SG-37169
05-3-02-3-129
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and
in
addition Referee
Robert Perkovich when award was rendered.
(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Kansas City Southern Railroad
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
:
"Claim on behalf of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of
Railroad Signalmen on the Kansas City Southern (KCS):
Claim on behalf of J. S. Harmon, G. McCoy, H. G. Altstatt, Jr., N.
Nicholas, D. J. Riggs, M. J. Kalczynski, R. H. Ware, Jr., T. C. Johnson,
J. A. Bates, R. M. Shoebroek, J. C. Timmons, T. D. Benge, Jr., J. E.
Sellers, D. J. Hamilton, L. B. Degner, B. J. Newton, T. E. White, IV, K.
W. Pool, M. A. Mitchell, T. A. Hogan, C. Charles, B. Stewart, T. P.
Breaux, J. L. Cathey, R. T. Parker, Jr., J. D. Nettles, M. S. May and C.
S. Cooper, for 420 hours at the pro-rata rate of pay to be divided
equally among the Claimants, account Carrier violated the current
Signalmen's Agreement, particularly the Memorandum of Agreement
dated February 22, 2000, when if failed to keep its signal forces at or
above the minimum number required by the agreement and then hired
contract employees to install highway grade crossing warning devices
from November 21, 2000 through November 30, 2000. Carrier File No.
K06015439. General Chairman's File No. 01-014-KCS-185. BRS File
Case No. 11898-KRS."
FINDINGS
:
The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the
evidence, finds that:
Form 1 Award No. 37444
Page 2 Docket No. SG-37169
05-3-02-3-129
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.
The Claimants were at all material times herein employed by the Carrier on
various signal crews. Between November 21 and 30, 2000, the Carrier used an outside
contractor. Allegedly, its workforce of Signalmen fell below 62 during this period.
The Organization's challenge rests on the parties' Memorandum of Agreement.
The Memorandum of Agreement provides that the Carrier ". . . agrees to maintain a
workforce of 62 signalmen . . . if, for any reason, the workforce falls below 62, all rights
to use contractor forces . . . are suspended until the workforce again reaches 62 . . . ."
We find it unnecessary to resolve this issue because the Organization failed to
meet its burden of proof. The record is devoid of any evidence as to the number of days
and/or hours that the Carrier's workforce fell below the number set forth in the
parties' Memorandum of Agreement. Under those circumstances, we are left with no
choice except 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 22nd day of March, 2005.