PUBLIC LAW BOARD N0. 4431
BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES
Parties
to the
VS.
: Case No. 1
Dispute
BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY.
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
1. The Agreement was violated
when the
Carrier changed the
seniority date of Sectionman W.E. Robinson on the Twin
Cities Seniority District No. 11 Track Sub-department
Roster.
2. The Agreement was also violated when the Carrier
assigned junior Sectionman R.A. Peter instead of W.E.
Robinson to the sectionman's position advertised by
Bulletin TC-024 dated December 27, 1984.
3. As a consequence of the violation referred to in Part
(1) above,
'*** we are requesting the Company to honor
and recognize Mr. Robinson's seniority
date of 8/19/54, which remained uncontested
on the Seniority District II Track
Sub-department Roster 1 Rank C rosters from
1975 through 1982, both dates inclusive.***'
4. As a consequence of the violation referred to in Part
(2) above, Mr. W.E. Robinson shall be allowed
'*** $17.50 (25t/per Mi. times 70 mi.) for
each regularly assigned working day or unassigned
day on which Mr. Robinson is required to drive to
St. Cloud, Minnesota to report for duty as a
sectionman. We are further claiming all overtime
and/or expenses earned by junior employe R.A. Peter -which would have accrued to Mr. Robinson had he
properly been assigned to position 13026, sectionman
Little Falls, on Bulletin TC-024 dated December 27,
q43j -I
1984. We are further claiming eight (8) hours
straight time for each regularly assigned working
day during which Mr. Robinson might be furloughed as
the result of the "'Company failing to recognize his
Seniority District 11 Track Sub-department Roster 1
Rank C sectionman date of 8/19/54.
*** "'
OPINION OF THE BOARD
This Board has reviewed the record and concludes
that the instant case has no merit and must be denied.
Claimant entered Carrier's service as a Sectionman on August
19, 1974. That is his seniority date and not August 19, 1954.
Somehow during the course of Claimant's employment, an
error was made when the roster was typed and his date
appeared as August 19, 1954. At a much later date, the
mistake was discovered by the local Union representative.
Both the Union and the Company agreed that the 1954 date was
in error and it was changed to 1974, as it should have been at
the start. This Board can see- no equity, fairness, or
reasonableness in this claim.
AWARD
This claim is denied.
R.E.rDennis, Neutral Member
(17t
Lt[/ ~'Z
uce Glover, Employe Member Maxine Timberman, Carrier Member
Date of 'Approval