PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 7163

PARTIES TO DISPUTE

) BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES DIVISION,

) INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS

)

) CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC.

STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

I. The Agreement was violated when, commencing November 25, 2012 and continuing, the Carrier assigned junior Track.man R. Banks to continue working on Team 6F04 and did not allow Claimant T. Lawson to displace him.

2. As a consequence of the violation referred to in Part 1 above, Claimant T. Lawson shall now be" ... allowed all Straight time and all overtime hours plus expenses made by the junior employee at the respective rate..."

FINDINGS:

The Board, upon consideration of the entire record and all of the evidence, finds that the parties are Carrier and Employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, asamended, that this Board is duly constituted by Agreement dated March 20, 2008, this Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein, and that the parties were given due notice of the hearing held.

The Organization asserts Claimant expressed his intent to displace a junior employee, R. Banks, from a temporary track.man position on Team 6F04 sometime in November 2012. It alleges that Foreman E. Ragland contacted Claimant on Sunday, November 25, 2012, and told him not to report the following day because he would not be permitted to displace Trackman Banks. The

PUBLIC LAW BOARD No. 7163

AWARD NO. 212

PAGE2

Organization has submitted this claim, arguing that Claimant was improperly denied the right to displace ajunior employee.

The Carrier responded that Banks was working as a Machine Operator on November 26, 2012, and Claimant did not have seniority over him in that class of service. Consequently, the Carrier argues that Claimant did not have a right under the Agreement to displace Banks.

Payroll records indicate that Banks was paid asa Machine Operator on November 26, 27 and 28, 2012. The records also reflect that he would work several days as a Production Trackman and then several days as a Machine Operator throughout the month of November. The Organization submits that these shifts in assignments were to permit Banks to remain employed and were the result of favoritism.

Based upon the record before us four years after the incident, it is impossible for this Board to make a determination that the work assignments were rigged to favor one employee over another. The fact that Banks' work assignments changed every few days does not establish that there was any improper handling. Ifthe Organization believed that was happening, it should have addressed it with management at the time. Apparently, this was not done. Consequently, all we have before us is the fact that Banks worked as a Machine Operator on November 26. Because he had seniority over Claimant asa Machine Operator, Claimant could not displace him that day. We conclude, therefore, that the Organization has not met its burden of proving a violation of the Agreement.

AWARD: Claim denied.

PUBLIC LAW BOARD No. 7163

AWARD NO. 212

PAGE3

Chairman and Neutral Member

An&ewMulford

Employee Member

Dated: 10/19/16 Arlington Heights, Illinois

Rob Miller

Carrier Member