PUBLIC LAW BOARD N0. 2452
PARTIES Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
DISPUTE: and
Western Maryland Railway Co.
STATEMENT Claim on behalf of S. H. Weslow for ten (10) hours
at time and one-half rate account Acting Foreman
C. E. Shahan allegedly performing mechanic's duties
on Saturday, July 23, 1977 at Smithburg, Maryland.
FINDINGS: By reason of the Agreement dated June 14, 1979, and
upon the whole record and all the evidence, the Board
finds that the parties herein are employe and carrier within the
meaning of the Railway Labor,ACt, as amended, and that it has
jurisdiction.
Employes charge that on July 23, 1977, Claimant, as
acting foreman, accompanied two Mechanics to Smithsburg, Maryland
to "install rear axle and housing complete in Ballast Regulator
BR714". While there, say the Employes, the acting foreman
"performed duties of Mechanic by working under machine bolting
up rear axle, etc." All this appears in Employes' letter of
August 29, 1977 presenting this claim to the Carrier.
Carrier's Manager of Engineering denied the claim on
September 29, 1977, stating that Shahan's duties on the job were
to supervise and final check the installation. The two mechanics
installed the axle assembly.
PL's
9.vsa-
In a letter dated November 10,
1977,
appealing the
denial Employes wrote that "on a previous occasion a same axle
assembly had to be replaced and it required three (3) mechanics
to perform this operation. The acting foreman replaced a third
mechanic.
Replying thereto on January
17, 1978,
and again
denying the claim, Carrier wrote that the first installation
differed from the second in that no straightening of the axle and
mounts was required. A new axle replaced the old. on July 23,
1977.
And, "Foreman Shahan was assigned to supervise the second installation
to insure that it was performed properly". After a conference,
Carrier confirmed the decision in a letter dated October
31, 1978.
Upon this record on the property, Employes have not
shown by a preponderance of relevant and acceptable evidence that
acting foreman Shahan actually performed work which belongs
exclusively to Mechanics. Employes have not met the burden of
proof.
This Board, therefore, finds that the Carrier did
not violate the Agreement and that the claim has no merit.
AWARD
Claim denied.
PUBLIC LAW WARD NO. 2452
D D D ICK, C irman arid -Neutral 8
'Y
, a ier em er
WILLIAM BE,
Employe Memo
DATED: