PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 6301
AWARD NO. 10
CASE NO. 10
PARTIES TO
THE DISPUTE: Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
and
Kansas City Southern Railway Company
ARBITRATOR: Gerald E. Wallin
DECISION: Claim dismissed
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
"Claim on behalf ofKCS -MSRC/SRC employees, W. N. Davis, M. Steele, M. Tims,
R. J. Brown, W. Brown, J. L. Gardner, C. M. Griffin, A. Johnson, R. L. Miller, E.
Parkman, C. Sanders, and J. Woods because the Carrier violated the current Work
Agreement including, but not limited to Rules(s) 13 - Seniority Districts, and Rule 23
- Mobile Gangs and Expenses, paragraph (a) and (i) when it required the above named
claimants to report and perform work beyond the limits of their respective seniority
districts.
As a consequence of this violation of Rule(s) 13 - Seniority Districts, and Rule 23 -
Mobile Gangs and expenses, paragraph (a) and (i), the above named employees
should be allowed one (1) hour pf pay per employee at their respective time and onehalf rate for each day this violation occurred and reimbursed by the company for the
use of their automobiles, for thirty miles each day at the allowable IRS rate then in
effect. As of the date of this claim that totals thirty-six (36) hours of pay at their
respective time and one-half rate per employee, plus mileage of three-hundred-thirtyfour dollars and eighty cents ($334.80) per employee for each day of commuting the
round trip into the KCS territory.
Additionally, each employee named should be allowed one (1) hour of pay at their
respective time and one-half rate and thirty (30) miles per day at allowable IRS rate
for each day worked thereafter until this violation is corrected."
FINDINGS OF THE BOARD:
The Board, upon the whole record and on the evidence, finds that the parties herein are
Carrier and Employees within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended; that this Board
is duly constituted by agreement of the parties; that the Board has jurisdiction over the dispute, and
that the parties were given due notice of the hearing.
The Carrier does not deny that the Claimants were used to perform work outside of the limits
of the seniority territory. It maintains, however, that this was done pursuant to a verbal agreement
Public Law Board No. 6301
Award No. 10
Page 2
between the Carrier and the two applicable General Chairmen. The General Chairman representing
the Claimants disputed the existence of such an agreement. No claims, however, emerged from either
the employees in whose seniority district the work was performed or their General Chairman to allege
any loss of work opportunity.
If there was no such verbal understanding, one would expect that such claims would have
been filed to protest the importation of manpower across seniority district lines. In addition, the
record contains a letter from the Carrier official who represented the Carrier in developing the verbal
agreement.
The record in this matter confronts the Board with an irreconcilable dispute of material fact
concerning the existence of the verbal agreement. It is well settled that we lack the authority to
resolve such factual disputes. Under the circumstances, therefore, we have no choice but to dismiss
the Claim.
AWARD: The Claim is dismissed.
rald E. Wallin, Chairman
and Neutral Member
A. Alexander,
Carrier Member
D. artholomay, -
Oration Member
DATE: