WHEELING AND LAKE ERIE DISTRI(
! r
PUBLIC LAW BOARD NUMBER 1837
Case Number 50
,Case 77-21)
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
Norfolk and Western Railway Company
and
Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
1. The Carrier violated the provisions of the
Effective Working Agreement dated April 1, 1951,
when on September 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16, 1977, it
used Signal Maintainer Earl Whiteman who is not
covered by the Scope of the Agreement, to purchase
material, insulate, and reline the interior of the
signal maintainers building at Jewett, Ohio, performing said work for forty hours.
2. The Carrier failed to use Bridge and Building
Carpenters Wayne C. Boskinson and Louis Katona, Jr
to perform the Bridge and Building work as indicated
above.
3. Bridge and Building Carpenters Wayne C. Hoskinson
and Louis Katona, Jr. being available and qualified
to perform said work, be compensated for twenty (20)
hours each at their respective straight time rates
of pay.
FINDINGS: This Bcard, upon the whole record and all evidence,
finds that:
The carrier and the employees involved in this dispute
are respectively carrier and employees within the meaning of the
Railway Labor Act, as amended.
This Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
4·
·
OPINION:
There is no disputing the fact that a Signal Maintainer
performed work that was clearly outside his classification -the erection and insulation of an interior wall within the
"Signal Maintainers Building" at the Carrier's Jewett, Ohio`
facility in September of 1977. At the highest appellant step
of the grievance handling procedure, the Carrier disputes the
Claim that such work was reserved to the B&B craft, that the
Claim was vague, excessive, incorrect and that the Claimants
were fully occupied furing this period. According to the
Organization, some 40 hours of time was expended by the Signal
Maintainer to the full knowledge of many people, including the
Claimants and that there were other members of the B&B craft
on layoff who could have performed such ca rk. The Carrier
contends the extent of time used by the Signal Maintainer was
only 10 hours and on certain dates differant than those claimed.
In an argument made first in the-submission before this Board,
the Carrier asserts that the Signal Maintainer performed such
work on his own, i.e. without approval or authority of supervision. In any case, per the Carrier, the Claimants were fully
occupied and are merely seeking a windfall.
We find merit for this Claim. It is beyond cavil to
assume that the Signal Maintainer did not perform such work with
at least the asquiescense of management; we note that no explanation was forthcoming as to how the materials were acquired. We
. -2-
Awo
sD - 1 s3")
ium
AWD. N0. 50
CASE N0. 50
· . Page 3
find such work well within the work jurisdiction of the B&B
carpenter craft and conclude that if such work had been properly
authorized and assigned, persons of that craft could have been
utilized. We are mindful of the Carrier's argument opposing
compensation in this case; bowever, we cannot overlook the,
option of using the Claimants at overtime to perform such work
or calling laid-off employees for this purpose. Given the blatant
nature of the error in assigning or allowing the Signal Maintainer
to perform such work, we order compensation. While such payment
might arguably be at the overtime rate, we note that the Claim
was at the straight time rate. And since we cannot adjudge
whether 10 or 40 hours were used in such work, we direct that 20 hou
pay at straight time be divided equally between the Claimants.
AWARD:
The Agreement was violated. Compensation is ordered to
be paid within 30 days of receipt of a fully executed AWARD as
set out in the OPINION.
JaWe3 F. Scearce; Neutral Member
n - : ~ . .
E. N. Jacobs, Jr.' William E. LaRue
Carrier Member Employee Member
Dated at 1:07"
-3
AW
o
sa - 83l