PROCEEDINGS BEFORE PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 3781
Referee Fred Blackwell
Carrier Member: R. O'Neill Labor Member: W. E. LaRue
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYEES
Vs.
CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
Claim of the Brotherhood (CR-2002) that: -
(a) The carrier violated the Scheduled Agreement, particularly
Rules 1, 4 and 5, when on May 17, 20, 21, and 22, 1985, it
assigned Repairman R. Greening, Canton Repair Shop, to break
up and pour concrete in the crane section of the Canton Repair Shop, Canton, Ohio.
(b) Claimant R. Mann, B&B Mechanic, shall now be compensated for
eight hours each day on May 17, 20, 21, and 22, 1985, for
Carrier's intentional use of a MW Repairman to perform duties
of B&B Mechanic.
FINDINGS:
Upon the whole record and all the evidence, after January
18, 1988 hearing in Washington, D. C., the Board finds that the
parties herein are Carrier and Employees within the meaning of the
Railway Labor Act, as amended, and that this Board is duly constituted by agreement and has jurisdiction of the parties and of the
subject matter.
OPINION -
This is a Scope claim in which the organization alleges
that the Carrier violated the Schedule Agreement, Rule 1-
SENIORITY CLASSES and Rule 4 - SENIORITY, by improperly making an
1
1
37
gI
~~
i
assignment to a Repairman of work which accrues to the MW Bridge
and Building Department by classification, past custom, and
history.
The Carrier asserts that the disputed work was properly
assigned in accord with practice of long standing and paragraph 4
of the Scope Rule of the applicable agreement.
The record reflects that on May 17, 20, 21 and 22, 1985,
the work of breaking up and pouring a concrete floor was performed
in the crane section of the Carrier's System Repair Shop located
in canton, Ohio, by a MW B&B Mechanic and a MW Repairman. l Specifically, a B&B Mechanic assigned to the Canton Shop to perform
B&B maintenance work at the Shop, was assigned the floor rebuild
work: Canton Shop MW Repairman R. Greening was assigned the work
of assisting the B&B Mechanic in the breaking up and pouring of
the concrete to accomplish the floor rebuild.
Paragraph 4 of the Scope Rule of the Schedule Agreement,
reads as follows:
"The listing of the various classifications in Rule
1 is not intended to require the establishment or to pre
vent the abolishment of positions in any classification,
nor to require the maintenance of positions in any clas
sification. The listing of a given classification is not
intended to assign work exclusively to that classifica
tion. It is understood that employees of one classifica
tion may perform work of another classification subject
1 MW B&B Mechanics and MW Repairmen are in different classifications, but are in the same craft and are covered by
the same Agreement between the Maintenance of Way Employees and the Carrier.
2
to the terms of this Agreement."
' The last two sentences of the quoted portion of the Scope
Rule clearly declares that the Rule 1 listing of classifications
is not intended to secure work "exclusively" to any listed classi
fication and that Employees in one classification may perform work
of another classification, such as the herein situation of a Re
pairman performing B&B Mechanic work by assisting a B&B Mechanic
in rebuilding a concrete floor. In addition, the long standing
practice of a Repairman assisting the B&B Mechanic assigned to the
Canton System Repair Shop is in accord with the foregoing con
struction of the quoted portion of the Scope Rule.
In view of the foregoing and based on the record as a
whole, the Board concludes and finds that the disputed assignment
was contractually permissible and the claim will therefore be
denied.
A ARD
Claim denied.
BY ORDER OF PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 3781.
Fred Blackwell, Neutral Member
1
i
V
R. O'Neill, carrier;,Member W. E. LaRue, Labor Member
Executed on I`.
2S,
1988
CON-3781\22-65.D26
3