Award No. 14
Parties to the Dispute:
Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes Division
IBT Rail Conference
and
CSX Transportation, Inc.
(R. Younkin - Claimant)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
(I) The Agreement was violated when the Carrier assigned Pittsburgh West Seniority
District employee W. Heinbaugh to perform work (operate ditcher) on Pittsburgh
East Seniority District territory between Mile Posts BF 244.0 and BF 270.1 on
November 24 and 25, 2003, '`instead of Pittsburgh East Seniority District operator
R. Younkin [System File A04818803112(04-0322) CSX].
(2) As a consequence of the violation referred to in Part (1) above, Claimant R.
Younkin shall now be compensated for sixteen (16) hours at the Class A Machine
Operators straight time rate of pay.
Findings:
l'he carrier or carriers and the employee or employees involved in this dispute are
respectively carrier or employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved ,tune
'' I. 1934. Public Law Board 7163 has jurisdiction over the parties and the dispute involved
herein.
At the time of the incident giving rise to the instant claim, Claimant had established and
held seniority as an Equipment Operator on the Pittsburgh East Seniority District. It is
undisputed from the record that the Carrier assigned a Pittsburgh West Seniority District to
perform Machine Operator work on the East Seniority District on the dates stated in the claim.
Me Organization claims that this was a violation of the seniority district reservation found in
Rule 4. 1-he Carrier counters that there was an emergency situation that allowed the Carrier to
deviate from the Agreement and assign work without the assignment being a violation of the
.Agreement.
1
PLB No. 7163
AWARD 14
Numerous Awards stand for the proposition that the Carrier is allowed substantial leeway
during emergency assignments. 1-lowever, the burden of proof is on the Carrier to establish that
there was an emergency. The mere assertion of an emergency situation is insuffcient to meet
that burden. (See eg. Award 33937)
fhe Organization has established a prima facie case that the Carrier violated the
Agreement with the assignment across the seniority district. The Carrier maintains that there
was an emergency and that the parties are in agreement that there was an emergency. The
Carrier's submission states at page 4:
CSXT, BMWE and Claimant Younkin all agree that on the dates of claim.
Heinbaugh's performance of ditching duties on the Pittsburgh East Seniority
District, where he did not hold any seniority as a Machine Operator, was caused
by emergency track washout conditions. It is well-established that the Carrier, in
an emergency, has broader latitude in assigning work than under normal
circumstances; in an emergency, Carrier may assign such employees as its
judgment indicates are required arid it is not compelled to follow normal
Agreement procedures.
The Claimant's statement contains the following notation: "
Note: The emergency work was performed on the Pittsburgh East seniority
district at MP between P 253.0 - BF 268.9 41 & 2 Track which is my seniority
district.-
Contrary to the Carrier's assertion, the Claimant's statement does not indicate that a
statement about "emergency work" was an admission by Claimant that there was an emergency.
The statement was dated 90 days after the incident giving rise to the claim and contains no
agreement that there was an emergency. The Organization's correspondence dated March 24,
2004, states:
Referring to the declination letter dated January 28, 2004, . . . Referring to the
'`emergency washout of the track condition" which occurred on Pittsburgh West
End Seniority District is not correct. The violation of the Agreement occurred on
the Pittsburgh East Seniority District.
A
review of the Organization's correspondence does not indicate that a statement
about "emergency washout" was an admission by the Organization that there was an
wmergency. There is nothing in the record to support the contention that there was an
emergency save for a mention in the Carrier correspondence. However, that mere
mention during the handling of the claim is insufficient here to establish an emergency.
Accordingly, the Carrier has not established the afrmative defense of emergency.
2
PLB No. 7163
AWARD
14
after a review of the record, and the Award citations contained therein. the Board
finds that the Organization's position is persuasive and the Carrier's affirmative defense
o#Y
emergency has not been established.
:ward:
Claim sustained.
Brian Clauss
Chairman and Neutral Member
w
Tim
Kreke No 1 V . Nihoul
BMWE C~X Transp Lion,
I
e.
Organization Member Carrier Me her
1
I
Dated this ~ day of
tf` sr~t- 2010