Form 1

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION

Award No. 40383
Docket No. MW-38737
10-3-NRAB-00003-050148
(05-3-148)

The Third Division consisted of the tear members and in addition Referee Steven IYL Bierig when award was rendered.

PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes Division - ( IBT Rail Conference

(Union Pacific Railroad Company (former Missouri ( Pacific Railroad Company)

"Claims of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

(1) The Agreement was violated when, beginning February 1, 2004 and continuing, the Carrier improperly changed the assigned work week of B&B Gang 930$ from Monday through Thursday work days and Friday through Sunday rest days to an alternate work period of a compressed second half working on the eighth (8th) of each month through the fifteenth (15th) and again on the twentythird (23rd) through the end of the month with the days between such compressed work cycles as rest days (System Files MW-04-82/ 1393986, T04-11/1395925 and M4-MOP040/1399493 MPR).


(2) As a consequence of the violation referred to in Part (1) above, Messrs. J. Calais, Jr., M. Woytasczyk, W. Gardner, B. Carter, M. Wingate, J. McClure and R. Herrea shall now, beginning February 1, 2004 and continuing until they are returned to their aforesaid assigned work week, each be compensated for two (2) hours at their respective time and one-half rates of pay for each day beginning on the eighth (8th) day of each month through the fifteenth (15th) of each month and each day beginning on the twenty-third (23rd) through the end of each month and compensated for twelve (12)

Form 1 Page 2

FINDINGS:

Award No. 40383
Docket No. MW-38737
10-3-NRAB-00003-050148
(05-3-148)

hours at their respective time and one-half rates of pay for each Friday, Saturday and Sunday of each month that they were required to work."

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 involved herein.

Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute



The facts of the instant dispute do not appear to be at issue. This case involves three claims that were filed by three different General Chairmen who are all signed to the same Collective Bargaining Agreement. Each General Chairman filed a claim over the same situation.


During the time period of the claim, B&B Gang 930$ was working on the Lufkin Subdivision along with Tie Gangs 916$ and 9169 under the same 9 hour curfew or work window. This curfew was provided by the Harriman Dispatch Center and was intended for maintenance forces to have nine hours of available work opportunity per work day so that the gangs could perform their services without having to leave the track so trains could pass. According to the Carrier, this curfew directly increases production because it provides opportunity to work on the track.


Management took a vote from a majority of the employees working under the same work window to determine whether there was agreement to work a compressed work period. Only Gang 9038 voted to not work a compressed work

Form 1 Award No. 40383
Page 3 Docket No. MW-38737
10-3-NRAB-00003-050148
(05-3-148)

period. The vote was two in favor and five against within Gang 9308. The other gangs working on the Lufkin Subdivision voted in favor of the alternative work period and when the votes for all employees working within the same window were combined, the Carrier contends that a majority voted to change schedules.


The Organization claims that the Carrier violated the Agreement when it unilaterally changed the days of Gang 9038 even though the members of that Gang clearly voted against the change to a compressed work schedule. It contends that Gangs 9168 and 9169 were working on different, unrelated projects and that the three gangs were not working on the same "window" as defined by Rule 25. Thus, the Carrier did not have the right to change the schedule of Gang 9038 to a compressed work schedule. As a remedy, the Organization requests that the members of Gang 9038 be paid for all lost wages at the applicable rates of pay.


The Carrier stresses that the members of Gang 9038 were working on the same window as were Gangs 9168 and 9169 and, therefore, the Carrier had the right to take the combined vote of all three gangs on the question of the compressed workweek. It is uncontested that the majority vote of the three gangs combined voted to agree to a compressed workweek.




Section 1.

Form 1 Award No. 40383
Page 4 Docket No. MW-38737
10-3-NRAB-00003-050148
(05-3-148)
arrangement and said document will be posted or available at a
convenient location accessible to the employees affected.
At the same time, a copy of the signed election for the agreed to
work schedule will be forwarded to the General Chairmen.
Alternative work periods established pursuant to this rule will
have no less than eight (8) and no more than twelve (12)
straight time work hours per each workday, and all rest days
will be observed consecutively. The work days of the
alternative work period may be scheduled on a non-consecutive
basis so the consecutive rest day period may be observed
during holidays, weekends, special events, etc. In any event, the
number of straight time work hours of the alternative work
period will equal the number of straight time work hours of the
regular work period that the alternative work period replaced.



After a review of the record evidence and the positions of the parties, the Board concludes that the Organization has been unable to meet its burden of proof. Based on the language of Rule 25, the Carrier acted properly when it placed Gang 9038 on a compressed work schedule in spite of the fact that a majority of that gang had voted against the change. Accordingly, the claim is denied.




Form 1 Award No. 40383
Page 5 Docket No. MW-38737
10-3-NRAB-00003-050148
(05-3-148)



This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an Award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.



                      By Order of Third Division


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 25th day of March 2010.