(2) The claimant welders, named in Part (1) hereof, shall each be allowed the difference between what he should have received at the welder foreman's rate and what he was paid at the welder's rate beginning July 9, 1984 and continuing until the violation referred to in Part (1) hereof is discontinued.
Upon the whole record and all the evidence, and after hearing on December 5, 1988, in the Carrier's Office, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the Board finds that the parties herein are Carrier and Employees within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, and that this Board is duly constituted by agreement and has jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject matter.
The Organization contends that beginning on or before July 9, 1984, the Claimant Welders performed the duty of the Foreman Welder position while assigned on the Columbus Division to a Welder position on Welding Gangs of between three (3) and fourteen (14) men in the classifications of Welder, Welder Helper, and Trackman; and that the Claimants are entitled to be compensated for the difference between the rate of the Welder Foreman and the Welder rate for the period in question.
The Carrier submits that in the exercise of its prerogative to determine what supervision, if any, is needed for the performance of its work, a determination was made that it sufficed for the Carrier's needs to place the Welding Gangs under the jurisdiction of a supervisor and an Assistant Supervisor who instructed the Gangs where, when, and what duties to perform; and that the assignment of a Foreman Welder was determined to be unnecessary.
Rule 1 of the Schedule Agreement, as pertinent herein, provides the following in respect to the defined duties of the position of Welder Foreman:
1 The issues and facts in this case, No. 2, and Cases Nos. 3 and 4, are generally similar and consequently, the submissions in all three (3) cases (2, 3, and 4) have been studied and assessed in making the herein findings.
Inasmuch as the above quoted Rule 1 C. 1. of the applicable Agreement clearly delineates that the duty of a Foreman Welder is to "Direct" other employees, the confronting claims and the record thereon present a fact dispute of whether the Claimants did in fact "Direct" the gang members in the performance of their work. In this regard the Board notes that the initial claim (Employee Exhibit A-1) contains no allegation that the Claimants performed work involving the duty to "Direct" the other gang members; and that such allegation and proof thereof would be necessary to validate the claims. The Board notes further that the necessary allegation is also absent, in the main, from the nine (9) factstatements from the Claimants submitted after the date of the original claim. However, the necessary allegation is present in the fact-statement of Claimant Hicks, Letter No. 4, which, in pertinent part, reads as follows:
The above quoted statement constitutes an allegation that the Claimant involved (Mr. Hicks) performed work involving the duty to "Direct" other employees in his gang; the allegation is
not countered or reputed by evidence elsewhere in the record and
3
i
Fred Blackwell, Neutral Member