PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 1844
AWARD NO. 76
CASE NO. 91
PARTIES TO THE DISPUTE:
Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
and
Chicago and North Western Transportation Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
(1) The Carrier violated the effective Agreement when assigning
Maintenance Gang #l employes to operate Speed Swing on rest days
of regular assigned Speed Swing Operator Clayton Tepley at
Altoona, Wisconsin (System File 81-19-180).
(2) That Machine Operator Tepley be allowed pay at the time and
one-half rate on each of his rest days commencing March 10 and
through April 15, 1979. A total of twelve (12) days.
OPINION OF BOARD:
Claimant is a machine operator at Altoona, Wisconsin, who operates the
Speed Swing for Maintenance Gang #1 Monday through Friday when an operator
is needed. On April 25, 1979 the Organization filed a claim on behalf of
Claimant alleging that the Speed Swing had been operated by someone else on
weekends (Claimant's rest days) from March 10 through April 15, 1979.
It is uncontested on the record that the Speed Swing was operated on
Saturday, April 7, and Sunday, April 8, in connection with a derailment at
Milepost 4.8, approximately five miles north of Eau Claire. Carrier-asserts
that the Roadmaster attempted to contact Claimant at his regular calling
place but was unable to reach him. Claimant concedes he was not at his
1
z
regular number, but he had left an alternative number with his foreman.
In the absence of a showing that the Roadmaster had actual knowledge of
Claimant's alternative number, we find that Carrier fulfilled its obligations to Claimant under Rule 31 by calling his regular number. Consequently,
we do not find that Carrier erroneously assigned operation of the Speed
Swing on Claimant's rest days of April 7 and 8.
With respect to the other weekends cited by the Organization, the only
"evidence" of the Speed Swing's use on those days is a letter signed by
Claimant dated January 11, 1980. This letter, submitted late in the
grievance process, constitutes a bare assertion unsupported by any probative
factual evidence. It cannot be viewed as establishing a prima facie case
against the Company, and the burden of proof does not shift to Carrier to
refute a bare allegation. Accordingly, the fundamental issue of reservation
of Speed Swing operation raised by the Organization is not reached on this
record.
AWARD
Claim dismissed.
Dana E. Eisch,Chai
n
H. G. Harper, E ploye Member
D. Crawford, C rrier Member