Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Award No. 37871
Docket No. SG-37216
06-3-02-3-149
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee
Marty E. Zusman when award was rendered.
(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(BNSF Railway Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
"Claim on behalf of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of
Railroad Signalmen on the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF):
Claim on behalf of A. D. Humphries for eight hours at the straight
time rate of pay for each Thursday and Friday that the Claimant
was not allowed to work and eight hours at the half-time rate of pay
for each Saturday and Sunday that the Claimant was required to
work, continuing until this dispute is resolved, account Carrier
violated the current Signalmen's Agreement, particularly Rules 2
and 3, when on January 9, 2000, it abolished two five-day
maintainer positions with rest days on Saturday and Sunday at
Alliance, Texas, and re-bulletined the position as a Relief Signal
Maintainer with rest days on Thursday and Friday. Carrier's File
No. 35 01 0017. General Chairman's File No. 01-034-BNSF-121-T.
BRS File Case No. 11928-BNSF."
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.
Form 1 Award No. 37871
Page 2 Docket No. SG-37216
06-3-02-3-149
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 Organization alleged in this claim that the Carrier violated Rules 2 and 3
of the Agreement when abolishing two five-day Signal Maintainer positions with
rest days of Saturday and Sunday and deviating from the workweek, without
reason; unilaterally creating Relief Signal Maintainer positions, which have no
classification under the Agreement. The Organization argues that the Carrier
violated the Agreement by abolishing two Monday through Friday workweek
positions with Saturday and Sunday rest days and creating positions with rest days
of Thursday and Friday. The Organization points to Rule 2, Classification, as
violated by the creation of Relief qiann] Maintainer and
RnlP
URl
anri M ae
violated by deviating from a Monday - Friday workweek without any operational
need or Organization concurrence.
!t____.L___ _ _7 t.7_ _ a9_ 17 _ f
Car i lei
arguThe
eu
that the positions were unable to facilitate the increased
work of the Alliance Yard Complex. Although it ran the yard with the two Monday
through Friday positions for a number of years, it could no longer do so. As for a
violation of Rule 2, Classification, the bulletin listing a Relief Signal Maintainer
position complies with Rule 3(E) "Regular Relief Assignments" and therefore is not
a violation. As for Rule 3 (B) and (F), they were not violated due to operational
necessities, and were clearly covered by Rule 3(D) and (E). As such, the Carrier
fully complied with the Agreement.
The Board studied the record and its background. There is no dispute that
Alliance Yard is a 24-hour, seven day a week operation. Although the facility began
._
I11(lA ._.;sl.
.w_
c;, 1 nI ; a :_~_ _ a.: _
__ __~_:__
a-_ .a _. .. >__ ~.____e___
in 177 wlltl
LYYV
oiQ: posili~nls woliitng live
day
service,
tile
l.idlrler
specifically noted on the property that serious economic competition required
changes, making it "critical that signal personnel are immediately available at the
Alliance Complex to facilitate repairs to optimize yard operations." There is no
Organization challenge to this Carrier position. The Organization argued instead
that the five day positions should be maintained, because of Rule violations.
Form I Award No. 37871
Page 3 Docket No. SG-37216
06-3-02-3-149
Rule 2 is a Classification of Work Rule. The Board studied it and does not
agree with the Carrier's use of terminology or explanation. In fact, the Carrier
agrees with the Organization, when it states, "The purpose for stating "Relief' prior
*n la~irtnnl T/Inin*ninnv77 41,n 1...71..4:.. 1.... ..7.._.J17....a:.._. _. .1
_.aa__1y U_
..v Na~aam i.asaru.,saaaa.a UZI LAM
Vullcalls
is
lVl l.l's11111cAa1V11 a11U 1.e11a1111f UUeJ
not
indicate that the Carrier created a new classification." It is not necessary to call the
employee a "Relief Signal Maintainer" as this is redundant, not in the Agreement,
and is his assignment, not his classification; but nevertheless, this does not rise to the
level of an Agreement violation sustaining this claim.
Rule 3 is the core of the dispute. The Board studied Rule 3 and the numerous
Awards cited for support. Rule 3(A) grounds the Rule in the March 19, 1949, 40Hour Work Week National Agreement, which includes the right of the Carrier to
change from five days service to seven days service when operations necessitate the
change. Rule 3(B) is for a five-day position with Saturday and Sunday off, "on
nosition~ thP. (intiog of which
l"an rvncnnuhlv hp mnf
in
ficrn A.avc » R_In 2/Til ,.,high
the Organization cites as violated permits the Carrier when it cannot reasonably
perform the work under Rule 3(B) to make the change, even when the "parties fail
to agree," with the additional right of processing a grievance.
The Carrier relies upon Rule 3(D) and (E). The Rules it maintains support
the change are stated as:
"D. Seven-day positions. On positions which have been filled seven
days per week any two consecutive days may be the rest days
with the presumption in favor of Saturday and Sunday.
E. Regular Relief Assignments. All possible regular relief
assignments with five days of work and two consecutive rest
days will be established to do the work necessary on rest days
_r
n..,
a_ _,_.
va aS,`~ignlilcnaa
III
Mx U1
JCVerI-Uriy Ner Vtl:e
U1 UU1110111al1URs
thereof, or to perform relief work on certain days as may be
assigned under this agreement.
Assignments for regular relief positions may on different days
include different starting times, duties and work locations for
employees of the same class in the same seniority district,
T11
Form
Jl
Award No. 37$71
Page 4 Docket No. SG-37216
06-3-02-3-149
provided they take the starting time, duties and work locations
of the employee or employees whom they are relieving."
The nrpanization nrnvirlpd
nn nrnhativP Pvirlpnrr to mnnnrt the Varriar'e
violation of Rule 3. The Board finds that the Carrier provided justification for its
change at Alliance Yard from two employees both working Monday through Friday,
to having employees available on Saturdays and Sundays. It is the Organization
tbaL7__
the
L___.7eu .._
L _b7!_7'Kole
to violation and it has not done so. The Carrier
has the right under Rules 3(D) and (E), supra, to meet its stated operational
requirements and expand its coverage to seven days under this Agreement, as "the
workweeks may be staggered in accordance with the Carrier's occupational
requirements" and only Saturday and Sunday days off are provided "so far as
practicable." The Organization provided no evidence in this record to support the
practicality of operating Alliance Yard with two five day positions which are not
sta22_ered. Certainly, the Carrier is not required to Day regular overtime. rather
than utilize the rights of the negotiated Agreement.
As such, the Board cannot find an Agreement violation by the Carrier. While
4h
n4 of amnln.>un .1., 7 4 7 6671-1: !' CC-1 llr1 : 6 i 7,
_.~
_ a
L_
LLII.
aJ~ig n,
ItvjL.a.J U~J1r,,faLCu
aJ
JXCllGX Ufgnal 1·1a111lallIGlJ
1J
1106 In
tile
Agreement and unnecessarily redundant with Rule 3(E), the Board is forced to
conclude that the claim must be denied for the reasons stated above.
AWARD
Claim denied.
ORDER
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders
that an Award fnvnrnhla to tha Claimontlel
not ha mod.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 1st day of August 2006.