BEFORE PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 6915
BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYEES
and
CN -
WISCONSIN CENTRAL RAILROAD
Case No. 3'l
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
1. The Carrier violated Rule 22 Section 3(A) of the Agreement when it failed to call
and assign Claimants C. Peters and E. Kollmansberger, who were regularly
assigned to the Marshfield Section Gang and instead assigned two (2) employees
from the Owen Section Gang to perform work with the surfacing gang on the
Marshfield Section Gang's assigned territory, located at Mile Post 281.2 (System
File C-220-14/WC-BMWED-2008-00015).
2. As a consequence of the violation outlined in Part 1 above, Claimants C. Peters
and E. Kollmansberger shall each be allowed eight (8) hours' pay at their
respective time and one-half rates of pay."
FINDINGS
:
The Organization filed the instant claim on behalf of the Claimants, alleging that
the Carrier violated the controlling Agreement when it failed to call the Claimants to
perform work on their assigned territory, and instead assigned the work to employees
from a different section gang. The Carrier denied the claim.
The Organization contends that the instant claim should be sustained in its entirety
because the Claimants were the regular employees ordinarily and customarily assigned to
perform work at the location involved here, because there is no merit to the Carrier's
defenses, and because the requested remedy is appropriate. The Carrier contends that the
instant claim should be denied in its entirety because the Organization has not met its
burden of proof, and because there was no violation of the cited rule.
1
PLB NO. 691
s
AWARD 37
The parties being unable to resolve their dispute, this matter came before this
Board.
This Board has reviewed the record in this case, and we find that the Organization
has failed to meet its burden of proof that the Carrier violated Rule 22 when it failed to
call and assign the Claimants work that was performed on Saturday, May 17, 2008.
Therefore, the claim must be denied.
The record reveals that the Claimants were Monday through Friday employees
who worked that whole week, May 12 through May 16, 2008. On May 17, 2008, the
Carrier assigned the Owen Weekend Section Gang to perform their regular work, which
included the work at issue. The Organization states that Rule 22 required that the
Claimants perform the work on overtime. This Board disagrees.
Rule 22, Section 3A, states, in part:
When work is to be performed outside the normal tour of duty and
not in continuation of the days' work, the senior active employee in
the required job class in the assigned gang will be given preference
for overtime work normally and customarily performed by them.
This was not overtime work. This is regular work that was performed by the
weekend assigned crew. It was the weekend crew's normal and customary work duties.
It was not overtime work.
The Organization bears the burden of proof in cases of this kind. In this case, it
has failed to meet that burden. Therefore, the claim must be denied.
PLB NO. 6915
AWARD 37
AWARD:
The claim is denied.
l
.l
PE TAR R. MEYERS
Neutr ember
__ ___~__ _._~. _ O GANIZA~/ION MEMBER
DATED: r- . . ,20
/1
DATED: - /~!/
