PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 5905
BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES )
Case
No. 3
and )
Award
No. 3
ELGIN, JOLIET AND EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY )
Martin H. Malin, Chairman & Neutral Member
D. D. Bartholomay, Employee Member
J. F. Ingham, Carrier Member
Hearing Date: December 15, 1997
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
1. The Agreement was violated when the Carrier abolished
B&B Painter O. Johnson's position and thereafter,
beginning on January 7, 1992, it assigned Painter
Foreman T. J. Woynaroski to perform painter's work
instead of recalling and assigning a painter to perform
such work (System File BG-659-92/TM-2-92) .
2. As a consequence of the violation referred to in Part
(1) above, Claimant O. Johnson shall be recalled to
service and compensated for all wage loss suffered as a
result of-the Carrier abolishing his position and
allowing an employe in a higher classification
(foreman) to perform painter's work beginning January
7, 1992 and continuing until the violation ceases.
FINDINGS:
Public Law Board No. 5905, upon the whole record and all the
evidence, finds and holds that Employee and Carrier are employee
and carrier within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as
amended; and, that the Board has jurisdiction over the dispute
herein; and, that the parties to the dispute were given due
notice of the hearing thereon and did participate therein.
Effective January
3,
1992, the jobs of Claimant and ten
other B & B Subdepartment employees were abolished in a reduction
in force. Carrier retained the painter foreman who continued to
~ ,,v~
-spas
,Awo
."'o . 3
work his assigned position, even though there were no employees
working under his supervision. The laid off employees were
recalled in March 1992. The Organization maintains that the
retention of the painter foreman instead of the senior painter
violated several rules of the Agreement.
Carrierhas raised several procedural objections to the
instant claim. Because we decide the claim on the merits, we see -
no need to decide these procedural issues.
The record makes clear that, on this property, foremen are
working foremen and it has been the parties' long-standing
practice to retain the working foreman rather than the senior
painter in a reduction-in-force. Accordingly, we find that there
was no violation of the Agreement in the instant case.
AWARD
Claim denied.
Martin H. Malin, Chairman
. F. Ingham Bartholo
Carrier Member Orga ization Membe
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, February 14, 1998.
2