AWARD NO. 529
Case No. 529
Organization File No. L60134219 Carrier File No. 20-95036
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:
The Agreement was violated when the Carrier called and assigned junior employes
R. Hicks and T. Abbott to perfom1 snow removal work and to fix a broken rail in the vicinity ofCincinnati, Ohio from Mile Post Bb1.8 to Mile Post Be 4.7 on the Cincinnati Terminal Seniority District of the Louisville Division on December 15, 16 and 17, 2019 and failed to call and assign such work to senior employes D. Darby and A. Veach (System File L60134219/20-95036 CSX).
As a consequence of the violation referred to in Part 1 above, Claimants D. Darby and A. Veach shall now each be compensated for" ... twenty seven (27) hours at his respective rate. ***" (Emphasis in original).
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 ofthe Railway Labor Act, as amended, 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.
Notwithstanding the Statement of Claim above, as presented by the Organization to this
Board, the original claim in this case was on behalf of Track Department employee D. Darby, alleging that he should have been used on the dates of claim to perform snow removal and repair a
PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 7163
AWARD NO. 529
PAGE2
broken rail. The Organization asserted that the Carrier assigned employee Richard Hicks, who is junior to Claimant Darby, to perform this work. That is the only claim properly before us.
The Carrier has denied this claim, asserting that Claimant Darby was not qualified to perform the required work. It explains that he is not qualified in Queensgate Yard and does not know his way around the yard. In order to perform the work in question, according to the Carrier, Claimant would have been required to get track time on controlled and non-controlled tracks, which he would not have been able to do. It concludes, therefore, that he did not have a right to be called for this work.
Seniority is not the only factor in considering an employee' s entitlement to perform specific work. In add ition, the employee must be available and qualified to perform the work. In this case, we find that the Organization has not met its burden of proving that Claimant was qualified and had a right to this work. We cannot find that the Agreement was violated.
AWARD: Claim denied.
Ross Glorioso
Employee Member
E ric C aruth
-
Carrier Member
Dated: Arlington Heights, Illinois