PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO.
4402
PARTIES ) BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES
TO )
DISPUTE ) BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
1. The Carrier violated the Agreement when it assigned a track
inspector to perform laborer's work on Patrol Gang #2 on April 16,
17, 18, 20, 30 and May 1, 1986 (System File #5 Gr./GMWA 86-8
22C).
2. As a consequence of the aforesaid violation, furloughed Laborer M.
E. Ogden shall be allowed:
"*** all time at his laborers rate of pay for work performed
by Track Inspector Miller and any overtime that might have
occurred He is also entitled to any vacation benefits that he
might have earned had he been working."
OPINION OF
BOARD
Claimant (a furloughed laborer) and W. Miller (a track inspector) hold seniority in
the Carrier's Track Sub-Department on the same seniority roster (Roster 1). On the dates
indicated in the claim, Track Inspector Miller performed the following work:
DATE FUN I TIME
04/16/86 Raised'oints M.P. 146.0 30 rains.
04/17/86 Raised oints M. . 137.0 l0
nuns.
04/18/ Raised track M.P. 218.0-240.0 2.0 hrs.
04/1 / 6 Gaged track Metropolis Yards and M.P. 2. hrs.
226.0-250.0
04/20/8 Dumped rock M.P. 215.0-220.0 2.0
hrs.
04/3 / Assisted m retiemg and raised road 10.0
lll'S.
crossin s M.P. 215.0-250.0
05/01/86 Fixed a broken rail on siding in Metropolis, 2.0 hrs.
Illinois
The Organization asserts that by performing the above-described work, Track
Inspector Miller improperly performed work belonging to sectionmen and therefore seeks
compensation on behalf of Claimant. The Carrier argues that the governing rules do not
PLB 4402, Award 19
' M. E. Ogden
Page 2
grant sectionmen the exclusive right to perform all work incident to track repair and, in the
past, track inspectors have performed the tasks the Organization claims are reserved to
sectionmen.
In his statement, Miller contends "This work was laborers work which I completed
while assigned as a track inspector [and] I realize that the ... work is and has always been
the work of laborers ... I was doing as instructed by the carrier ....". Statements
submitted by the Carrier from former track inspectors show that in the past track inspectors
have performed work of the nature performed by Miller on the claimed dates. Those
statements relied upon by the Carrier are disputed by the Organization's General Chairman
(a former track inspector and roadmaster).
Rule 55 (Classifications of Work) provides:
A. 1. Track Inspectors.
An employee assigned the responsibility for the proper
inspection of the tracks, roadway and right-of-way on his district(s)
Q. Sectionmen.
Employes assigned to constructing, repairing and
maintaining roadway and track and other work incident thereto.
The Organization has not carried its burden. The rationale stated in PLB 2203,
Award 24 involving a similar dispute concerning track gauging by a foreman as opposed to
a furloughed trackman on the same seniority roster is applicable to this case:
Track gauging is bargaining unit work performed normally
by trackmen. We can appreciate the concern of the Organization
when a foreman is used to handle such work, particularly at a time
when a trackman, in this case the claimant, is on furlough.
However, here the foremen and trackmen are in the same
bargaining unit and on the same roster. Moreover, neither the Scope
rule, which is of a general nature, nor any other provision of the
applicable agreement imposes any restriction on the use of foreman
to gauge tracks. Nor, so far as the record shows, does any practice
on this railroad bar foremen from performing those duties. On the
contrary, it appears that foremen have historically attended to those
PLB 4402, Award 19
M. E. Ogden
Page 3
functions.
Of course, under many agreements, any use at all of foremen
to perform the work of their subordinates constitutes a violation.
However, the rules and practices on this property do not prohibit
such work assignments and there is nothing in the record that
suggests that foremen are performing the work in question to any
greater degree or in any different fashion that in the past
The Organizations arguments seeking to distinguish Award 24 in that on this
property Rules 55A and 55Q impose the kinds of restrictions discussed in Award 24 are
not persuasive. See Third Division Award 12501 ("The mere inclusion of a classification
rule does not, by itself, mean that the work of each classification will be restricted to the
employes of the class. This is especially true where, as in this case, the several
classifications are grouped in the same seniority class.").
Third Division Award 27696 involving work performed by a machine operator
instead of a trackmen cited by the Organization is distinguishable. There, the categories of
employees were on separate seniority rosters and the work performed lasted an entire
month immediately upon the abolishment of a trackmaaa's lh^sition. Here, the categories of
employees are on the same seniority roster and the work was no where near as extensive as
in that award.
AWARD
Claim denied.
Edwin n H. Berm
Neutral Member
I J1.. Kalhnen ~P. . S-Wanson
Carrier Member Organization Member
Denver, Colorado
January 15, 1991