Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

THIRD DIVISION

Award No. 42910 Docket No. MW-43136 18-3-NRAB-00003-150392

The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee George Edward Larney when award was rendered.

(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes Division PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (IBT Rail Conference

(

(Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis

STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

"(1)The Agreement was violated when the Carrier instructed senior

employe M. Clark to cease performing snow removal work on March 2, 2014 and subsequently assigned junior employe K. Lutz to perform snow removal overtime work beginning at 10:00 P.M. on March 2, 2014 until 3:30 P.M. on March 3, 2014 (Carrier's File T040914-04TRR).

(2) As a consequence of the violation referred to in Part (1) above, Claimant M. Clark shall now be " be compensated for fourteen

(14) hours time and one-half and three and one-half (3.5) hours double time and all applicable meal periods at his applicable trackmen's rate of pay."

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.

On March 2, 2014, the St. Louis metro area experienced a major snow storm which resulted in an interruption to scheduled train operations at Madison Yard. In accord with past practice, Carrier responded to the snow emergency by implementing a long-established procedure since at least 1997 by dividing its Maintenance of Way forces into two12 hourcontinuous duty shiftsfor Track Departmentemployes. Carrier explained this procedure is a safety measure taken as an alternative to working employees on a continuous24 hour to 48 hour shifts.

The facts associated with this claim are not in dispute. Records reflect that on Sunday, March 2, 2014 the Claimant worked the first 12hour shift plus overtime of two and a half hours and junior employee Lutz worked the second 12 hour shift plus overtime of three anda half 3.5 hours. Carrier explainedthatwhileit iscompany policy to make every attempt to work employees a maximum of 12 hours continuous, under theemergency snow conditionsthatexistedontheclaimdateofMarch2andintoMarch 3, 2014, additional hours worked by the Claimant and Lutz were necessary to keep trains moving.

Although the claim date here is not the claim dates associated with earlier emergency snow removal work that occurred on January 5, 6 and 7, 2014, nevertheless, other than the difference in dates, the core issue of seniority associated with both claims is identical making this claim a companion case to First Division Award 42908. As a result, our holding in Award 42908 re-stated below is applicable to this claim, to wit:

"We have thoroughly examined Carrier's assertion that this identical claim arose between the same Parties which was decided in arbitration beforeRefereeMartyZusmanandmemorializedinThirdDivisionAward 32183,adoptedinAugust,1997,andconcurinCarrier'spositionthat,that Award is controlling in this case. In effect, the bottom line of that Award establishes that during snow removal emergencies safety of employes assigned to the work of snow removal trumps contract provisions such as, for example, establishment of fixed shifts that ordinarily would be applicable to work assignments under conditions other than weather emergencies. Furthermore,Award32183notedamongotherfindingsthat the Organization never before challenged Carrier's procedure of establishing twelve (12) hour shifts due to safety concerns for employes assigned to snow removal work under emergency conditions which resulted in the claim being denied. In other words, the Organization was found to have slept on its rights nearly twenty-one (21) years ago and the Board is not about to overturn Award 32183 by contrary findings premised on identical facts and circumstances. Additionally, to be clear, we also find that Carrier did not under the prevailing circumstances as asserted by the instant claim violate the Claimant's seniority rights in any way. Accordingly, we rule to deny the subject 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 14th day of February 2018.