NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 7163
Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way )
Employes Division,IBT Rail Conference )
)
and )
)
CSX Transportation, Inc. )
Case No.174
Award No. 174
Statement of Claim
"Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
The Agreement was violated when the Carrier assigned Employes D. Hester, K. Lafontaine, C. Ladnier and C. Easteringto perform overtime bridge service on August 31,2012 and September 1and 2, 2012 and failed to assign such work to Claimants C. Burnham,D. Roper,
C. Meinhardt and W. Dreadin (System File 811153012/2012-131107 CSX}.
As a consequence of the violation referred to in Part 1above, Claimants C. Burnham,D. Roper, C. Meinhardt and W. Dreadin shall each now '... be allowed thirty seven (37) hours overtime at the respective rate of pay....' (Emphasis in original) (Employes' Exhibit 'A-1')."
Background
On the claimed dates the Carrier assigned employees D. Hester, K. Lafontaine, C. Ladnier and C. Eastering to perform repair work at an entrance to private property located at Mile Post 000787.1on the MNO&P Seniority District, Atlanta Division. For the claimed work, these employees are junior to Claimants.
On September 12, 2012 the Organization filed a claim under Rule 24 - Claims and Grievances. The Carrier denied the claim. On December 27,2012, the Organization appealed the claim denial to the Carrier's highest designated labor relations officer (HOO). The instant claim was one (1) of ten (10) claims discussed during conference on April 2 and 3, 2013. By letter dated May 31,2013, the HOO
identified the claims disallowed.
According to the Organization,the HOO did not issue a decision on the Organization's claim appeal "within sixty (60) days after the date the claim or grievance was discussed of the reason therefor'' as required by Rule 24(b). When that occurs, Rule 24(b) states "the claim will be allowed."
The Carrier states that the 60-day window in Rule 24(b) opened for the HOO on April 2 and 3, 2013, when this claim and others were discussed at conference. BMWE's assertion that the Carrier failed to disallow the claim within 60 days is not based in the Agreement because the HOO disallowed this claim by letter dated May 31,2013 which falls within the 60-day open window.
Findings
Award No.174
Public Law Board 7163, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that (1) the parties to this dispute are Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as amended,(2) the Board has jurisdiction over this dispute and (3) the parties to this dispute were afforded due notice of the hearing and participated in this proceeding.
Undisputed is that the parties convened in conference on April 2 and 3, 2013 and discussed the instant claim as well as nine (9) other claims. Under Rule 24(b), the HOO was to issue a decision on the instant claim within 60 days of conference. The HOO's declination is dated May 31, 2013 and it identifies 9 claims disallowed. The instant claim is not identified on that list. Given that finding, the Board concludes that the HOO did not issue a timely disallowance to the instant claim. When the Carrier does not meet the window of opportunity in Rule 24(b), the outcome is preordained by the negotiated terms agreed to by the parties - - "the claim will be allowed." Accordingly, the claim is allowed.
Award
Claim allowed in accordance with Rule 24.
Rob Miller Carrier Member
Signon this 1fl3....day
of ]at<IJP!fJ< , 20"ifL
Patrick Halter Neutral Member
P& .
Organization Member