PROCEEDINGS BEFORE PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 3781
Case No. 43
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-1319) that:
(a) The Carrier has violated Rules 18, 23, 24, and 38(b) of the
Scheduled Agreement, when on December 12, 1984, and subsequent dates, the Carrier changed the headquarters of Claimant
P. C. Barroner and others, without the benefits of Rule 23
(g), Paragraph 1, and Rule 24.
(b) The Claimants, P. C. Barroner, et al, shall be granted the
benefits afforded under Rule 23(g), Paragraph 1, and Rule 24,
starting from December 12, 1984, and continuing until such
violation ceased.
FINDINGS:
- Upon the whole record and ail the evidence, after March
19, 1987 hearing at the National Mediation Board, Washington, D.
C., the Board finds that the parties herein are Carrier and Em
ployees within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended,
and that this Board is duly constituted by agreement and has jur
isdiction of the parties and of the subject matter.
OPINION
This claim arises on the basis of allegations that
Claimants were improperly deprived of benefits under Rules 23 and
24 as a result of the Carrier's violation of the Agreement by its
1
381- 2S
unilateral action respecting the Claimant and other Employees in
the AFE Gang, whereby the Carrier changed the Gang headquarters of
the Claimants from AFE Camp Cars, Huntington, Pa., to a regular
fixed headquarters at Huntington, Pa.
The Carrier has denied the claims on the basis that the
Carrier is not restricted by the Agreement from unilaterally
changing a headquarters point. The Carrier submits that the Carrier is permitted under Rule 4, Section 2, to change headquarters
and that when a headquarters change is made, this gives rise to an
affected Employee's option to exercise seniority to another position. In this instance, Carrier says, all Claimants elected to
accept the change in headquarters and reported to the new headquarters on the effective date of the change.
After due study of the foregoing and of the whole record
the Board concludes that the position of the carrier is not correct. The provisions of Rule 4, Section 2 (a) 7, clearly grants
an employee, whose headquarters is changed, the right to exercise
I
seniority. In addition, there is no requirement that the mere
change of such headquarters from one location to another required
the readvertisement of the involved position. However, in the
case at hand the claimants' positions were established with headquarters as "camp cars". As such, they entailed various other
rules of the agreement unique
in
application to employees assigned
to mobile camp cars. Thus, the headquarters change from "camp
cars" to a fixed headquarters was not the only significant change
2
in the essence of these positions and should have been accomplish-
ed by readvertisement of the positions.
AWARD:
Paragraph (a) of the claim is sustained to the extent indicated above. Because of a lack of any evidence with
respect to the extent of monetary damages or to the nonavailability of other positions to which the claimants
could have exercised their seniority, the claims in paragraph (b) are dismissed.
BY ORDER OF PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 3781.
Fred Blackwell, Neutral Member
v
/Z1
R. O'Neill, Carrier Member W. E. LaRue, Labor Member
Executed on
rL,~n.fictly=t ~/
, 1990
I
CONRAIL\3781\25-43.502
3