In the Matter of Arbitration between:
BROTHERHOOD OF MA.INTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES DIVISION - IBT RAilCONFERENCE
and
NORTHEAST ILUNOIS REGIONAL COMMUTER RAllROAD CORPORATION
In the Matter of Arbitration between:
BROTHERHOOD OF MA.INTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES DIVISION - IBT RAilCONFERENCE
and
NORTHEAST ILUNOIS REGIONAL COMMUTER RAllROAD CORPORATION
PUBLIC LAW BOARD 5564
Case No. 44
Award No. 44
THE ORGANIZATION'S STATEMENT OF THE CLAIM
The Carrier violated the Agreement when it assigned members of a maintenance gang. instead of Claimants, to perform capital project overtime work at 80th Avenue on the Rock Island District on January 30, 201'f (System File C110318/08 1-610NRC).
As a consequence of the violation referred. to in Part 1 above, employes K. Rainey, <3. Ponce, O. Butter and K. Kots shalleach be compensated for eight (8) hours at their respective overtime rates of pay.
Basedon therecord developed by the Organization and theCarrier, this Public Law Board (Board) finds the Parties herein to be a Carrier and Employees within themeaning of theRailway Labor Act, asamerrded, andthatthis Board has jurisdiction over the Parties and the dispute.
This dispute is between the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes Division
- IBT Rail Conference (BMWE or Organization) and the Northeast lltinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation (Metra or .Carri§!r) {collectively the Parties) The dispute arises out of BMWE's claim that Metra violated the Parties' Agreement Rule 33, Appendix
"
"
0, Section 13 with regard to an 801 Avenue Depot capital project.
PLB5564
Case No. 44 Award No.44
The facts and on property handling of BMWE's claim are as follows:
At the time of this dispute, Claimants, K. Rainey, G. Ponce, D. Butler and K. Kots, maintained seniority in the Bridge and Building (B&B) - Water Service Subdepartment on a Rock. Island District Capital Gang.
On January 30, 2011, Carrier assigned a maintenance gang to eapital project overtime involving the removal platform lights aUhe Rock Island Districtaotb Avenue Depot (80u, Avenue).
On March 1a, 2011i BMWE asserted a claim that the assignment violated the
Parties' Agreement ln particular, BMWE's claim asserted,
On Sunday January 30, 2011 the carrier allowed Maintenance Bridge and Building Sub-Department Gangs# 1 and# 2 to work scheduled overtime from 6AM to 2PM assisting electricians to perform Capital WQr:k (Platform Demolition} at 80th Avenue Depot Project on the Rock Island Oistnct,
BMWE asliSrted that Carrier fciilec:t to assign Claimants tQ perform the80th Avenue capitalproject overtime service inviolation.oftheAgreement. Specifically, BMWE'sargued thatMetraviolatedAppendix 0, Section 18which., BMWEmaintained, required thatCapital Gangs are. called first from the territory in Which the Capital work was performed, BMWE arg.1.1ed that B&B Gang 2 is assigned to the CWI and Heritage Corridorwhich should have been thelast called to assistunder Appendix 0, Section 17 while B&B Rock lsfandDistrict employees were not considered for the overtime work. BMWE also asserted that the Claimants, as qualified B&B. employees, possessed the skilfs necessary to perform the work.
On Ap.riJ 29, 2011, Metra responded to the claim asserting that it had no merit because the 80th Avenue work wasnot platform demolition but theremoval of oldplatform lights. The Carrier saidthat since Capital had noelectricians working, then Maintenance electricians removed the old platform lights. Consequently, no Capital B&B Gang was assigned to 80th Avenue
PLB5564
Case No. 44
Award No. 44
On June 24, 2011, BMWE appealed the claim to the next level. At this level, BMWE's claim language changed asserting now,
On Sunday January 30, 2011 the carrier allowed Maintenance Bridge and Building Sub Department Gangs# Iand# 2 towork scheduled overtime from 6AM to 2PM assisting Maintenance electricians to remove old platform
lights at aottt Avenue Depot Project on the Rock Island District. (Emphasis
added).
BMWE asserted as well that "certainly the removal of old platform lights would be the beginning of a demolition project and had previously been performed by Capital Electricians, assistedby Capital Gangs not Maintenance gangs." BMWE argued "simply because the Carrier has abolished Capital Electricians doesn't necessarily mean that the Carrier has abolished 'Capital Work.'"
On August 3, 2011, Carrier provided a more fulsome response to BMWE's claim noting that the removal of the platform lights may have been followed by the demolition of the platform, as BMWE claimed, but removing platform lights is not the same work as demolishing the platform. Further, the Carrier maintained that removing platform lights is a separate task, which does not accrue to any B&B employees and is not covered by the Agreement. Metra asserted as well that BMWE cited no evidence thatthe Claimants were the regularly assigned gang for 80th Avenue project particularly for removing the platform lights whichdoes not accrue to B&B employees. Metra asserted that the employees called to assist, were called to assist !BEW electricians to whom Section 18 does not apply and, as a result, the Claimants were not first in line to be called for this assignment.
Pursuant to the Agreement the dispute was conferenced on March 2, 2012, but not resolved.
The dispute is now properly before this Board for adjudication.
PL85564
Case No. 44
Award No. 44
RELEVANT RULES
The relevant Agreement language between BMWE and the Carrier provides:
RULE 1. scoee.
These Rules govern the hours of service, rates of pay, and working conditions of allemployees in the Maintenance of Way Department, as listed by Subdepartment in Rule 2, and other employees who may subsequently be employed in said Department, represented by the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes.
Emptoyes included within the Scope of this Agreement shall perform all work in connection with the construction, maintenance; repair, and dismantling of tracks, roadbeds, structures, facilities, and appurtenances related thereto located on the right-of-way or used in the operation of the Carrier in the performance of suburban passenger service.
* * *
APPENDIXO OVERTIME
AGREEMENT between the Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation and the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
IT IS AGREED:
In the application of Rule 17. Call Rule and Rule 18. Overtime of the April 16, 1984 General Rules Agreement, as amended, the following procedures wilt govern the assignment of overtime, whether planned or emergency.
* * *
Section 18. All capital project overtime is performed by the regularly assigned Capital Gang. Maintenance persons assisting a Capital Gang are called first from the territory in which the Capital Gang is working. Then, depending onthe subdepartment,the same procedures outlined initems one through fourteen are followed.
PLB5564
Case No. 44
Award No. 44 The relevant Agreement language between IBEW and the Carrier provides:
RULE 1. SCOPE AND CLASSIFICATION OF WORK
* * *
(b) CLASSIFICATION OF WORK - Engineering Department Electricians' work shall consist of all inspecting, assembling, installing, removing, splicing, dismantling, connecting, disconnecting, overhauling, adjusting, applying, stringing, sagging, transferring, stripping, repairing, replacing,, maintaining, erecting, calibrating, aligning, jig stoning, under•cutting mica, cleaning, operating, rebuilding, wiring, bonding, turning, lubricating and testing of the following in the respective A.C., ARCS, 1500 Volt D.C. and 1500 Volt Bonding Subdivisions:
BMWE has the burden to prove aH alfegations in the claim. This claim is brought by B&B employees of the Rock Island District regarding overtime work at 80th Avenue on January 30, 2011. At its core, the claim is that Metra violated Appendix 0, Section 18, by assigning maintenance crews from other territories to assist in overtime work performed by electricians represented by IBEW in violation of the Agreement.
However, the facts establish, and BMWE conceded in the processing of the claim, that the work, initially claimed to have taken place, was not actually the work performed at 80th Avenue on January 30, 2011. Specifically, BMWE's initial March 18, 2011 claim assertsthat B&B Gangs 1 and2 assisted electricians with platform demolition in violation of Appendix O, Section 18. Atthe next step of handling on the property, BMWE's June 24, 2011 claim describes the work by B&B Gangs 1 and 2 as assisting Maintenance electricians to remove old platform lights at 80th Avenue.
Agreement Appendix 0, Section 18, requires that capital project overtime is assigned to Capital Gangs and theassisting maintenance persons are called first from the territory in which work is being performed. The claim challenges the Carrier's selection of gangs to assist IBEW electricians removing old platform lights from a different territory than where the work was being performed.
PL85564
Case No. 44 AwardNo.44
The starting point of the Board's analysis is to determine whether there was a violation of the Agreement bytheCarrier notbasedanthe.territory of theassisting gangs, but must be based on the scope of the work. in thi$ regard, BMVVE has not proven the
work, removing oldplatform fights at soui Avenue, falls withinthe scope of Agreement Rule
1. It isclearthat Appendix 0, Section 1a, applies to, and requires, certain assignments tG.
employ es qovered by the Agreement to assist other employees also covered Y the Ag ment Howevert the Appendix 0, Section 1:8, whichestablishe$ specific procedures for overtime assignments, cannot be read to rrt<>dify or, i.n this dispute, expand Rule 1 s coverage.
Rule 1 definesthe general and overarching scope of the BMWS Agreement, Rule 1 cannot beread ta constrain the Carriers .assigoment of theclaimed work, which iswithin the scope of work of another eraft1 to tiw.t Claimants
The Board finds that the record establishes that the work performed by the IBEW eteetrieians. was outside: the scope of the BMWE Agreement, In addition, BMWE presented no evidence toprove that the Carrier's assignment 0f thework violated Rule 1. Therefore, since th work was 01.1tside the scope of Role 1, then the procedures for assigning BMWE employees to assist In the aow Avenue work do 11ot pply because the work was notcapital project overtime performed by the regylarly assigned Capital Gang.
The Board fincfsthat since thework at 80111 Avenuewas performedby Metra's IBEW employees, BMWE has notproven a violation of Appendix 0, SEiction 18.
Based on the record developed by the Parties, the unique facts ofthis $im and for the reasons. dh:.cussed above, BMWE's claim is denied.
PLB5564
CaseNo.44. AwardNo.44
o:R ...ida
o:R ...ida
For the Organization;
RPyu:C law Board Advocate
BMWE-IBT
Neutral Member:
?ean. Rogers. Esq.
Sean J. Roger & Associates,. LLC
Leonardtown, Maryland
December 2:1, 201@.