PlIBLIC LA\V BOARD NO. 7877


Hrotherbood of i\'faintcm:1.0.ceof\Vay )

F..mployes D i\1 i.:ion - urr Rail )


A\VAR.l.l NO. 19

Con..fcrence

) C, , SE NO. 19

)

and


BJ'iSF Railwa y Cumpaoy

) NRA8- 0000-3160016

)

)


STATEMENT OF CL..<\.l M: Claim of the System Committeeof the llrotherbood lh•f:


image

(f) The Carrier v.iolated the Agreement when, by Bulletin Gl 408R- J6 which OfH:m-<f on August t6, 2014, it bullctioed and ultimately assi ncd the Welding Gang:

TRWXX2009 (He-1d Welder Position 57026 and Grinder Position 57039)"itb

hca dq uart-t r.,; in Eola, Jllinuis to a work ,,,eek"itbrest days of other than Saturday and Sunday (System flle C-14-A04-028/J0-14--0394 l!NR).


(2) As.1 consequence of the viob.don rd-tn-cd to in Part ( I) above, Claimant B. Bartolinishall:


•.. be paid at th-t o,•cn irue 'r&tc otpayfor$.Ill hours wol"kttl every Sunday that they are t<. u.ired to work:UJ.0 eight (8)strn.i bt time hoursfor every Friday when they are requii:-ed to suspend work, comme-ncing Augtl,$t 16, 2014 and continuing u. i:itil the violation ceases.


Also, as settlem e.nc or thisd ailn1 I am requesting thsf these positions b-e abolisb1..-d and r e- hulletined with a .Monda,>· through t;'rida y wu_rk week and the restdaysof Saturday and Sunday.


As tbis i.-. a continuing ebjm, thh• would not onty he a cl3ioJ for the Claimants named in thisclaim, hut, any employees th.at" 'OUJd suhsequ.entty t-):Crdse their se.niority to these posit"ions in any manner.


flNDINGS A-Nil OPINION OF llOARD:


Public Law llo:.rd No.7877, upon the whole record and a.II the eii dence .,find.,; that theparti«.-s he.rein a.re Carrier and Employees within the mt.aning of the Railway l,:.bor Act,::i.$ ame.Jtdtd; th:tt the Hoa.rd has j urisdic tion (wcr the dispute herein; and that tbc parti<. to the di putc weregiven due notkeof the h-ca ring and did p:u:1icipate the rein.


Jn rendering our findings, rhc Roard has con.siden-d only the ar umeotsand eiidcnce. rai,5e<}during theon-property hai:i.dling of rhis cl:tim.


On August 16, 20141 Carrier bulletined beadweldt r and grinder positioo.s :1sseven

  1. ifay a week po itioo.s with rest daysof Friday and Satu.rday. There is nodispute. that the

    PLB No. 7877

    Case No. 19

    Award No.19

    ew positions had the siunc btadqual"tcrs and job dutie. ::tS they h!id historically maintained.T eb.r e i$a l so DO dispute that the head welderand grindet' P<,tsrtionsp rc ·, fou Sly; and historictlly worked a five(5) day a We(!k sch td n le with Sat·urday and Sunday restdays.


    TheOrg aniu Ji ou filed the instant claim asserting that theCarriersbnlletfo imp:ropcrly crc-:tted th e positions wi1h restduysof}.riday and S!iturday. The

    Organi-,,ation t.-ootend that the position are.in f:lct assigned a.,r; five (5) days perwee k and aJ'e not filled or working on a veu (7)d2yperweek basis. Accor.d ing to the 0l']:!antl-Htion, the Carrierv fola t ed the contl'oll.iog Agn:.'t'roent by re<1ltiring the Clain,3nt towork

    position.s:tssigncd wi1h restdaysother th!io Sa turday aud Sunday. Furtber,. the

    Organij!..ttion asserts th t Ca)"ricr's bulk·t.io improperly)"cquired Claimants to perform sen'lceoo the required n:st day of Sunday and thcosuspend work uo Friday. Insupportof itsposition, the Organization relies on Ruic24 which pl'ovides inrc lc ·, n t put:


    RULi!:24. FORTY l:lOliR WORK \VJ,;J,;K


    1. Subjc.."t.-t to the cx .ce prioos contained in thiAgreemc.nt, a wor k weekof forty (40)

hours, consisting.of five(5) daysofei ht(8)hou'J's cscb, with two(2) cuo.secuti"c

,bys off in each even (7)ishereby establi.shcd . The workweeks may be taggercd in accurdanct' with the.Compan.)'' Qperatiooal req u.ireme11t. So far a practicable tbe days off sha1J be Saturday and Sunday. Thiswork week ruleis

subje.ct tu the pro, , jl:i-ious ..,·h.ieb follow.

NOTE:' !' hecxprf-s...ions• posit ions' arid 1work' refertosen •icts , duties, or oper.itions nc..-ccssa.ry to be perr()rmed the .specifi<:d n um be .r of days per week, and o.ot to the work Wt.-ck of in<li"idual cmploytt$.


O.Fin - --ady Position - On positiOll$ the dut.ic:$ of wh td , c;.u1 reas o.u<1bl y be met in fh· e (5) days, the daysoff wiU be Saturday and S11nd ..ty.


R. S i-x day P ositio n.,;- Where thenatureof theworki\ $Ucb. that cr:oployes will be

nc-c de d. .i. . (6) daysc:1;dl week, the rt;,;t dayswillheeitherSatw·day and Su•1duy,or Suoday and Mondu ·-


.F Seven- day Positions- On positions which arc filled st vcn (7) da.v:i. per week any

[ \ \ ' O (2) c«Jnsecutive daysmay bethe r-cst dayswith the presumptio n io favorof S::ttu.rday:u:ad S un da y .


G. Regular Relief Assignment,:;


( 1 ) All possible regular relief assignments with fiye (5) daysof work and two

image

(2) cons«:utivc restday will be c:i.tablisbed LO do the workneces ary on rest daysofa :i.igl)J)lentsin six (6) or .scv ("n (7) day sen •cic or corobinati<ms therc,of, or to perform relief work on certain daysand such

PL.B No. 7877

Case No.19

AwardNo.19


types of other work on other daysas may be assigned.Retida -;ignments will o.ot be rcqtlll'ed to haw, five(5) daj•,; of work1,cr week

(2)As si gn men t ;"> for regular relief positions may on differentdays il)clude d ifef rc n .t startingtime dutiesand work locations for croployes or the

sameclassin the same.seniority district:provided they bke the starting

titut, dutiesand work luc:1tions of the empfoyc or employt.'S whom they

are rclie,'ing.


***

image

JI. Oc,ialiunfrom Monday.Friday 'Weck - If in po!<!itions or worke:ttcndiogover a period of five(5) days per week.:tn operational pr(lb.lem aris which the Company contends cannot be met und-er the provisioos of Section D of this.rnle,and requi:re that.some of such cmploye.s workTuesday through Saturday instead of Monday

thr oatgb Fricfay, and the emplOyt>.s contend theconrrary and if the parties fail to

ag:rcetb·erc on, then if tbcco1npaoy nevertheless pul uc.bassignments into effect, the di,;pute may he proct:...1,.."(f as a : ric, ';tn c.eor claim und<.·r this Agn-cment.


The Organi1..at-io.o asserts that Ruic 24(A) and (D) are clearand umunbiguotJ.sin. providing forSaturday andSunday astest days when positions havedutic,. whkb can rtJt.'iOO.abty he met in n ·c days. Cc.msistenl with this Agreement htngnage, the positions established for tbe welding gang herein ba\'e b.istorically been as..1,igned a five -day work

week with Sa.lu.rday and Stmd.ay as rest day.s. The Org...nhation argues tbat Carrier bu nocs:how.o any change in operational need to bulletin tbcf.e position.,; with other than

Satutd:iy and Sunday a.\ rest days n(,r bas Carrierestablished that rhedutiesof these

weJding gang o) s.itfons c-a:ranot be m c.1 in fiveday.s. Jn such a circumstanc<.·, the

Organization point,; to the maoy pt-t \'<.'tlc n t award onthissubjectwhich havecon clud ed that Carrier cannotc.wercome tbe bea, •y pre-.suwption that positioos a.re to be assigtJ<.-d work W<-ck.s consis(jng offi'vc d2ys with Satu rd 2y w.nd Sunday u.s rest d.a,.., . &c, l'I.R 4014, Cases 9, lO, 11; SRA11071 Award No. t (Eischen. 1999);Third Division Awards35564;

358-05; 36055; 367 22; 37049; 4.\561; PLR 7656, Awa,d 4 (Strongni.n,2014).


In addition, the Organization contc1:1ds tbat Rulc 24(H ) n-qu:.ires carrier tocontact the Organi7..ationand dis<:ttss the issue if ao opera1ionaJ problem arises which c.aon o t be. met under Rule24(0). Noa tk m.pt by the C:1nier was rn:.Jde to contactt-he Organization prior to imple.menting the positions at is:suc. The Organi:r.atiou argues that thefir.sttime the

ma t.tre

was brought to it$ attention was when the position.s wereposted for bulleti»


Jnrc sponse1 Carri er contcnds t.hat if fully com plfod wirh the provisiotts of the

<:(lnfl:'olling Agreem, en t. ft ::u-gut$ that RuJe.24{F) recogni,ze t.bat seven-day position may

becreated and:1ny two <:on.secutivc days may be the rest day.... A seven-day assignment can

b<e.· sta blished where, as in this cns<.-, thereexist..seven days of work. Onfi"cof thosescn o

duy . thework isperformed bytber<.-gul:u·(se"en-day) positiun/g:10 , with the remaining twodaysof work perform,-d by its bull<.'ti.oed regular reJiefcrew in accordance with Rufo 24(G).


image

PLSNo. 78;;

Case No. 19

Award No. 19


The Ca r ri.er contends that there i. noagreement fangu;1ge in Rule24 (F) or (G) tluu rcquir ittoshow any operationaJ net.-d. Even if !ouch. a showing; is necessary, bowc\ 1 ci:-, Curier asscru that it hastbe managerial right to dctc:rm.ioe the effidc.ot condu<:t of its business. lncrc:tsed tn'trric volumes n:q uire Carrier U> rC!>pond to any events that hamper thisincrca cd train traffic. Equally imporfant, the.fact that thereiscc.>\'crage assi:ned

scYend ya

,- per week is evidencein and of itself that there isan ope:rali(.lnll1need; otherwtsc

the Carr.ier would sh:npl)' pay ove.rt imc ratesfor ocC'a...ional work insh: d o(payin au

::idditionaJ 40 hoursofstnight time pay to ao additional employee.


Carrier recognize:-:. that Rule24 (A) od (D) are applicable when thereis:a. chaug:ein thew or k"''tt k $i.tuation1 wherea five-day a-.;,.ignment for opcnttionaJ reasons ca.onot be

p e rfor. rued Oh a Monday through Friday ba is. lo rhat siruatioo, Carrier acknowledges it

would have to prove operational n«d to stht<lulc a change i·n lhe workweek and rC!:it days.

Herc, the po.siti()n$ in question arc .regular seven-day assignments to coverseven-daJ ' Mrvicc; requirements and th ir relief position.-. wen·created to rcJicvc the rest days of the St:\•cn-d y assignments. Sincf' the Carrier way tll"..-.ign,3teseve11daysof workwhere thereis

such m:t'd, it is not required to inform the O rga n i:.d,: ioo before ba:nd. Jo .suppot1of it,;;

p osi Lion , Carrier cites:1lineof ca.-.l-:,; which ha,•e reached the s..11ut tonclusiou in similar factual circumstances.These prior:..w:1rd.s, in. Carrier's view, should bedecroed conn-oiling

io. the hist.antcase.See, e.,g. Tb.ird Oil'i.sion A.ward 21428; P, T 8 .2960, Awa'l'd80 (Vemou,

1985) Appendi.J. K SSA, Award 23 (O' Brien, 1977).


The lloard h.1s re\ •icwcd the eousidcrablc arbitralp:recWcnt provided by the p3rties. It is clc:i1:r thatwe.arc.notoperatingfo u1:1charted" ' a ters. Notwithstaudfog the holdings iu someearlier ca es, upon which the Curi.errelies, the betterreasoned <lnd m:1jority vitw ha. adhered for del".tdt>.s to the princip1c.s set forth in Spcci:d Board of A<lju...tmeut No. f107 Aw:trrl No. 1 (Eischen) when, ii:tt\·r pre ting the F,rrty Dour Work Week:


Tbtse early cases L1id down the gnidinprinciple, foUon•ed in nll or the bett er­ reasoned casesdecided in the l!l$t 40 yeal"S, dull the la.ngna e appc...ring in .Rule l5(a) aud(h) createsa rebuU.ahlc presumption that cxi,;ting five-d.a.y oper-.ttions

s ffed by positious '\'\itb a Mond.ay-Fri d ay , ...c,rk week aud Sarurday-.Sur.,d a y rt-.st daysshould not unilate.rally be cbanged tosc,•cn-J:1y operations "'ith other than Saturday-Sunday rest days. A Can-ierinvoking the languageof Ruic 17(:). :ind (d) to alter thissbttusquo and ju tify implementing such a clrn.nge from five-day Monday through Fridayposition.$ to seveu..day positions with other than Saturday­ Sunday rest days, bears the burden of rcbuttioi that prt.....,un:aption byproducing

, ck a r and c.o·n vincing evidence of nl-ccssity due to a matcrhtl change of ope.rational rcquJreme.nts, i.e., a hoo.a fideoperational oced to make thechnge.


Contrary to Canic'l''s po itioo, we are pcn:.uudcd thatRule24 canno L he: properly

image

interpreted at this point in timeasautbori:,;jng the C:,rrier to unilaterally :tbolish historic

PLBNo. 7877

C,o,;e No. 19

Awud No. 19


ti.Ye-day positicrns :Jnd to re-establish them as seven-day positions n i1s to aYoid the plain reading of Rule24. The Agreement isdc-.1rthat a Monday throu;;h Friday eight houpr cr . dayw or k we. e k is fb c coutractu:tlly preferred schedule. Alt.bough deviation fro,n the Monday thi:-ougb Friday schedule is permitted-, Rule 24(A) nc-Yettheles..\ requires a slu""ing that thereare '"operatioo:tl requirements" ·h icb oecessirnce the tbang,ca nd, further, thatit

i s n ot "p' ra c:tic.1ble ."' to h:wc Saturday and Sunday rest days. Notably, 1hcp rc,;umpt ioh in

fav or ofS a tru day and S unday rest daysapplic:-; (.-qually to St '\ co -d ay posi tions uuderRu ic 24(F).


Thus, Carrie'r's H$Strtion Hndit need nut establish any change inoptnation:d r (•qu i n.· roen b is inconsistent with the.language of Ruic 24 and the long lineof cus.c?, in ter p r eting the Forty Hour Work:Ru ic which req uire Carrier loshow operaliom:tf

neccs!)ity in order to change a long-.establishtd Mond9.y through Friday five-<lay}>O s itiou w i 1h S :ih.·ud ay ;.1nd S und ay r t daysso a,; to provide.St.'\•eo-d ay CO\'cr:tgc witb rest days other than Saturd:.i ' and .Sunday.


C:errier'li :dtern afu•c argu.ment ts that an increase in train traffic and the need (or s.,e •t.•n--d a y coverage rebut tbt presumption in favor of th-e Monday through Fri da y

w,rr kw t:ck ith rt.-stda,·s on Saturday amJ Su.od'ay. In o·ur ,dew, however, that argument is equally probltr:uatic,for two reasons. .First, thereisnoevidence in t.he record to support the C.1rrier 's position that there have het"o.wa(eri.i:d modifications in couditio.us which justifya cb:tnge in work schedules tbathave.been in existence for decades. The burden wai; on the

Ca rrier to csbblisb tha.t point.In contrast to T hird Division 36999,wher-e. C a rr ie r introduced probafu-·e evidence that it wasunable to mt.-ct .sen ' ice demands by the u c Qf

nvcrtilue·on weekends a.nd where the duties of the positions could not reasonably be met on a Monday thrcrngh Friday chedule, no $Ubstan tiv t . evidence was offered to su.pport

Ca rrier s po$ition in tbi,; c:J.sc .


S t:ond,. railrcudillg h s !ways bc;c.o a 24n opc .-atqi 1;1. \Vitbou( ulJ."SC ut l ia tion to

rebu:tthe prc,;umption of the J\'londay through .Friday workweek wjrh S:1tru. day and

Su od ay rtSl days, wearc cumpclled to con.elude thatwhat Canier isattempfio.g to do is rc:unu$!;e· work.schedule,; of po$itions thatwe.re historically assigned fi,•c d a y service

Mond: yt tbrougb Ftiday toschedules1hat arc still five--day a weekservice but overlapping

these position to pro,ide Sh'tn daycov(·rage with rest days bf other than Saturd:ty a.ad Sunday. The dfcct istoavoid the pa "'Juent ()f overli.me ou wtt-kcn.ds. lt bas been consistently hth1ished, bowe.ver, th.1t avoida nce of O\'ertime p!ty,:ucnts for

Sa turday/Su nday workisnot an operational necessitysufficient to overcome the

p r-t..s·u mptio n that the existing fi\-·t.--day ope r a tio n .staffed by positions"nith a Momhty through Fr iday work w«k and Satut·day Sund.lly restdaysshould not beunilaterally

cha nged. See, c g.Third Dhisio:u Awards 36722. \\re thf:rd or e find that Carrier's assertion that thework w·a.-.seven days per wct.kwork is notsuffic.kot in lig_h t o f the fact that rhe

"n' Ork hl:1.$ prt\eiously ht."CO and continues to be performed nn a fiveday per week basis with relief. Asthe,Boardstated in Third Oivi..sioo Award No.36n2:"".. . the reco r d in thiscase shOl'\ S thatbefore, during aod after the dispu.ted changeover by the Carr ier, tbc work performed rcroa i.ned de,factoa fi\'c-day operation, dtspite the Carder's unilateral de jure


s

PLBNo. 7877

CaseNo.19

Award No.19

dtdatation tbal... it would henceforth bt $Cheduled and compensated asa se ·c-n day

opera tion."


U:.1sed on th.efortg,oinwefmdthat Carrie,r , iolat ed Rule24 of theAgrcc i:ntnt wben it u.nilafor:.dly changed the F.ola \.Vc-.Jding Ga ng position.,; Monda.y through Friday woa:-k"W«-k. withSa tur da)•i- and .Sundays dC$ignated a.. rest day:; to a Suncby through

Th ursday wor k" 'c' ek TI-ith Friday :,i;g(f Sa tu rday as re.,;t days. A,; a remedy for the prove.n

v fola ti -no, the Ca r r ier is directed 10 compensate Ciaim::.nts in a n amount t.-qtt:d to the

differencebe t'ff'e<-n what they actually earned Qnder the contr act'ttal.ly inv_al idsc h edu le and

what they would hih'Cearned but for tbe violation of Ruic 24 and. un tilsuch timeas the po ifions arc properly buUNined. Ca rrier shall compeu.satc the employees :dgned (uthe

ga ng after theinvalid change thedifference. between the (:n erfi mt and straig;h.t time rateof pay for each hour worked on the former Sunday rest day after the August 16, 2014

c h:m g ts. The Organization' rtqutst foraddicioo.aJ straighttimed:1.mage-s for the " Jos t

wo r ko.ppor

uf nit)' " i:; bereby deoied, tt>o.siste·nt wjtb the rcpon ed decisionson·

tb.iss u bje .ct


AWARD


Cl iw s.u ntined in accordance with the Findings.



',

',

/l

/l

/.

..,,... I'\ _) Ii.... . ?

image

..-\11\ '1 S. K.ENlS: Neutral Mt ml:>cr

/ I

image

image

!

Zachary Vocgcl ) O rg,Uliza tion Meml)(tr'


0:dtd Janua ry 18, 2019.


6


image