The Carrier maintains two (2) of its largest locomotive repair shops at Waycross, Georgia and Corbin, Kentucky. Both shops opordtn around the clock, seven days per week and are rnsponsiblo for maintaining, servicing and repairing hundreds of locomotives. Both shops provide required quarterly maintenance on a "spot line". Locomotives move from spot-to-spot being inspected and receiving specific maintenance services. Light repairs are also performed on the spot line. Both shops also operate a "fallout section" to which locomotives are moved if necessary repairs cannot be
line and employees with spot line assignments can and do perform work at shop locations other than the spot to which they were assigned.
This dispute arose in August 1989 when changes were made by the carrier in the rest days for certain spot line positions in
The above-quoted provision is from the Seaboard Coast Line Agreement and is essentially identical to Rule 7 in the Nashville Railroad Agreement.
both shops. In Waycross, the rest days for second shift spot line employees were changed from Friday and Saturday to Wednesday and Thursday. in Corbin, the rest days for first shift spot line employees were changed from Sunday and Monday to Thursday and Friday.
The organization immediately protested the changes. After several attempts, the parties were unable to resolve their dispute. They subsequently agreed to forego the usual claim procedures required by the Agreements and resolve the matter through expedited arbitration in accordance with the terms of a mutually acceptable Public Law Board Agreement. The parties' dispute is now before this Board for adjudication.
The organization maintains that the spot line positions at Waycross and Corbin are five-day positions and, therefore, the employees filling those positions must be given Saturdays and Sundays as their days off. It contends that when the spot lines were initially established, they ran seven (7) days a week. At that time, the organization claims, the positions at issue were seven-day positions filled seven (7) days per week, and the employees occupying those positions appropriately received rest days other than Saturdays and Sundays.
In early 1989, it asserts that the carrier advised the Local chairman at each location that if production levels on '-,..he spot line wore improrod, the rcarriar wn_iilri prnvi r1A mnrp dAgi rahl A rust days by converting the spot tine to a zive (5) day per week operation. According to the Organization, the Local chairman
agreed, and each shift working the spot line began to receive either a Saturday or Sunday off each- week. Even- though Rule 1 provides that employees in five-day positions must receive both Saturdays and Sundays off, the organization maintains that since the majority of the involved employees preferred their new rest days, the Local Chairman decided to accept the changes implemented by the Carrier. This decision, according to the organization, was made at the Local level, without the involvement or approval of the relevant General Chairman and should not prejudice the organization's position in this matter.
A few months later, after the employees had assumed their new rest days and increased production as requested, the Organization claims that the Carrier reneged on its deal and changed the rest days of employees on two (2) shifts so they no longer received a Saturday or Sunday off as rest days each week.
The Organization maintains that both Rule 1 and past practiceSaturdays and Sundays off. However, the organization maintains, as long as the spot hne is operated five (5) days per week, the employees must be given weekends off. The Organization cites a n=bet of Awards in support of its pos'it'ion.
The Organization also claims that its interpretation of Rule 1 is supported by more than thirty (30) years of past practice. It contends that numerous Awards have held that a practice or application of a r-ale which has been in existence for several years becomes a part of the Agreement and cannot be changed by either party in the absence of clear and unambiguous language to the contrary.
Here, the Organization claims that the language of Rule 1 does nor clearly and unambicpously run contrary to the pa=-ties' longstanding practice and, therefore, car-not be used by the Carrier to justify changing that practice.
The Organization explicitly rejects the Carrier's contention that the positions in dispute are seven-day positions because the repair stops at issue are operated seven (7) days per week. It claims ;.hat the spot lines are separate departments which perform different tasks than the other departments in the repair shops. Although the Organization admits that spot line employees and employees in other departments of the repair shop can and sometimes do perform each others' work, it argues that this does not occur on a daily basis and does not mean that the repair shops should be viewed as a single operation.
employees at issue occupy five-day positions and that the Carrier has viclated the Agreement by not providing Saturdays and Sundays off.
The Carrier, an the other hand, maintains that the positions at issue are seven-day positions and, therefore, it is free to stagger the work wee3: and give employees occupying those positions days off in the middle of the week. It contends that maintenance and the repair of locomotives at the Waycross and Corbin repair shops is an integrated operation which operates twenty four (24) hours per day, seven (7) days per week, three (3) shifts per day. Thus, carrier argues, its authority to stagger the work week of individual employees with other than Saturday/Sunday rest days in order to perform these necessary repair and maintenance functions is guaranteed by paragraphs (a) and (d) of Rule 1. The right of carriers to stagger work weeks of individual employees to achieve six (6) or seven (7) day ccverage, according to the Carrier, has consistently been recognized in numerous Awards for more than forty (40) years.
Carrier argues that the spot lines are not separate, isolated departments. Rather, it maintains that they are an integral part of the continuous maintenance and repair activities at the shops. Carrier claims that spot lines operate in a progressive, assembly line fashion in order to perform specific servicing, maintenance and repair functions at six (6) designated spots. The shops' other repair and maintenance tasks are usually performed on locomotives at fixed locations in the fallout section.
According to the Carrier, however, employees with fallout assignment perform work on locomotives progressing throughout the spot line and employees with spot line assignments perform work at shop locations other than the spot to which they are assigned. Thus, it argues, the spot line positions are part of a seven (7) day per week operation and it is free to stagger the work week of spot line employees and provide them with mid-week rest days.
However, even assuming for the sake of argument, 'that the Board finds that the spot lire positions are five-day positions, Carrier contends that it is well established that the five (5) day work week assignments of employees having different duties or shift assignments may be staggered to provide seven (7) day service, provided the employees are of the same -craft and seniority district. It cites a nimber of Awards in support of this contention. Since the employees on the spct line are in the same craft and seniority district as the other Machinists in the shop, the Carrier claims it can stagger their assignments around the clock in order to maintain the repair services it requires in each shoo.
For these reasons, Carrier asks that we deny the Organization's claim and find that it did not violate the Agreement.
After reviewing the record evidence, we are convinced that the organizationts arguments must fail. It is well established that when applying Rule 1, the relevant issue is the number of days per week an operation of service is performed, and not the number of
days per week an individual employee is assigned to perform that operation or service. Thus, even if the spot lines are viewed as separate departments, the evidence demonstrates that they are not five (5) day positions.
After the challenged schedule changes were implemented at Waycross, the first shift employees were assigned to work Monday through Friday.2 The second shift employees were assigned to work Friday through Tuesday. Thus, at least one (1) shift of spot line employees was assigned to work at Waycross each day of the week. The spot line positions at Waycross, therefore, must be considered a seven (7) day per week position. Thus, Carrier is free to stagger the spot line assignments and provide some employees with days off in the middle of the week.
After the challenged schedule changes were implemented at Corbin, the first shift spot line employees were assigned to work Saturday through Wednesday. The second shift employees were assigned to work Sunday through Thursday. Thus, at least one shift of spot line employees was assigned to work at Waycross six (6) days per week. Thus, at a minimum, the spot line positions at Corbin must be deemed six (6) day per week positions.
We find, however, that the spot line positions at Waycross and Corbin are not separate positions which can be viewed in isolation from the other Machinist positions in the shops. The inspection,
service, maintenance and repair activities performed at Waycross and Corbin are parts of a necessary integrated function performed seven (7) days per week, twenty four (24) hours a day. The spot line is an integral part of that function and cannot be viewed in isolation. Employees assigned to the spot line perform the same type of work as employees assigned to the fallout section. It is undisputed that they are part of the same class, craft and seniority district as the other Machinists who repair locomotives in the fallout sections. Moreover, it is undisputed that employees assigned to the fallout section sometimes work on the spot line and that employees assigned to the spot line sometimes work in the fallout section.3
Therefore, we find that the spot line assignments at Corbin and Waycross are seven-day positions and that the Carrier is not required to provide the employees with weekends off.
since the organization concedes that Carrier may, at any time, return the spot line assignments to seven-day positions, our finding that spot line positions can not be viewed in isolation from the other activities in the shops would be irrelevant if one of the shifts at Corbin were assigned to work Fridays. If that reassignment was made, then the spot line positions at Corbin, like the current positions at Waycross, would become seven-day positions and Carrier would not be required to provide any weekend days off.
Milton Jolley
Employe Membe