The Claimant holds seniority as a Welder Helper. On the dates involved, he was regularly assigned as such within the Fitzgerald Subdivision on the Southern Region. B. M. Young holds seniority in various classes including Welder and Track Inspector. On the dates pertinent hereto, Young was regularly assigned to the position of Track Inspector headquartered at Cordele, Georgia.
The instant claim arose when welding repairs were needed and no welding force was readily available. Track Inspector Young was directed as part of his regular duties to make the repairs. On November 21, 2000, he spent approximately six hours welding fasteners at a rail crossing. On November 28 and 29, 2000, he was utilized for approximately three hours each date to make field welds in the process of replacing two insulated joints.
Pursuant to this action, the Organization submitted a claim contending that the Carrier violated the Agreement when it assigned Track Inspector Young, instead of the Claimant, to perform welding work when the Claimant properly should have been assigned the work. As a result of this alleged violation, the Organization requested that the Claimant be paid 32 hours straight time and three hours overtime. According to the Organization, welding has historically been performed Welders. In addition, the Organization claims that the Carrier cannot rebut the Organization's prima facie case.
Conversely, the Carrier takes the position that the Organization cannot meet its burden of proof in this matter. The Carrier contends that the work was properly performed by Track Inspector Young. It contends that Track Inspector Young held seniority as a Welder and was therefore qualified to perform the work. In addition, the Carrier contends that there is no evidence to suggest that the work in question was exclusive to Welders or that it was performed on a continuing basis. The Carrier further contends that the Claimant was unavailable for the work in dispute because he was 150 miles away and it would have been highly impractical to transport him in order to perform this limited amount of welding. The Carrier also contends that both classes of employees (Track Inspector and Welder) are members of the same craft. According to the Carrier, the Board has repeatedly pointed out Form 1 Award No. 37669
that the burden of proof is even more heavily placed on the Organization when employees from the same craft dispute work assignments. The Carrier contends that this position is substantiated by numerous Awards involving the instant parties.
The Board cannot find that the Organization has been able to meet its burden of proof. In order to sustain its position, the Organization must prove that Track Inspector Young, who held seniority as a Welder, was precluded from performing welding work. After a review of the evidence in this matter, the Organization has been unable to prove that Track Inspector Young was precluded from performing the welding work in question. In addition, there has not been a showing of any substantial practice to support a binding past practice.
Stated differently, there has been no showing that the work was improperly assigned to Track Inspector Young. Thus, having determined that the Organization has been unable to prove that the welding performed by Track Inspector Young was exclusively reserved to Welders, we find that the Organization has not met its burden of proof and the claim is therefore denied.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an Award ffavorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.
This Award U-as w rong,ly decided and therefore a dissent is in order. In this case, the Carrier t;ssigned a n employe who w°:zs siscigncd to the track inspector classification to perform work of the track welder clrissifrcation for a pn-iod of three (3) days during November 2000. At the time this dispute arose, the Ch;imants were assigned as welder and welder helper performing work on the subdivision where the work was performed.
During the handling of this dispute on the property. the Clencral Chairman pointed out that for the last three (3 ) decades, the Carrier had assigned a welding force that traveled the subdivision where this work was performed doing various welding duties. The Canicr abolished the aforementioned welding force and the welding deities previously performed by them were left undone. This fact was never disputed by the Carter during the handling of this dispute on the property. Rather than assigning a welder and welder helper to perform welding work, the Carrier asserted that there was a need to have the work at issue performed immediately to ensure the safe operation of train traffic. What we have here is a Carrier w ho has purposely undermanned its welding operation to such a point that it nttentpts to justify assigning such work to other classifications.
During the panel discussion, we invited attention to Third Division Awards 36849 and 37317 between these parties. Those awards <ICCided class disputes such a s what was before the Board here. In Award 365.79, the Board held that there is a long-standing demarcation of work assignments between the Track and Welding Departments. In that case the Welding Department employes perfonned minimal Track Dcpartmcnt work on the claim dates, yet because of the long-standing work demarcation acknowledgment, the Board held that assigning such track work to welders was a violation of tire Agrecrnent. Rather, in this cnsc the Carricr simply abolished the welding position that would have performed the work ;md assigned it to a Track Department employe. In defense of its decision to do so, it asserted that because the track inspector held seniority as a welder, it was proper to as=ign him to perform the work. If the Carricr is allowed to prevail on such weak premise, then the entire Agreement is at risk.
The record of this case clearly shows flint the C~anricr hhstantly disregarded the Agreement and hoodwinked the Majority to follow its lead. Therefore, I dissent.