AWARD N0. 11
CASES NOS.
MW-183,
_ MW-184,
mw-i85.
SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0.
293
BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES
versus
THE CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY OF NEW JERSEY
STATEMENT OF CIAIM
:
(1) The Carrier violated the effective Agreement in the following instances:
(a) On June
23, 1958,
by failing to assign the senior qualified Assistant Foreman to the position of Assistant Foreman on the Siegfried section for a period of one week.
(b) On July
7, 1958,
by failing to assign the senior qualified
Assistant Foreman to the position of Assistant Foreman
on the Nesquehoriing section for a period of two weeks.
(c) On Ju2y
7, 1958,
by failing to assign the senior qualified Assistant Foreman to the position of Assistant Foreman
on the Jim Thorpe section for a period of one week.
(2)
That Laborer-Driver Raymond Beers be reimbursed for the difference in
pay between what he received on his regular assignment and what he should have
received as an Assistant Foreman during the period June
23
to June
27, 1958,
inclusive.
(3)
That Laborer-Driver Raymond Beers be reimbursed for the difference in pay
between what he received on his regular assignment and what he should have received
as an Assistant Foreman during the period July
7
to July
28, 1958,
inclusive.
(4)
That Laborer-Driver A. Pavlick be reimbursed for the difference in pay
between what he received on his regular assignment and what he should have received
as an Assistant Foreman during the period July
7
to July 11,
1958,
inclusive.
OPINION OF BOAR
:
Since these three cases involve a similar set of facts, they are considered
together in this single Opinion and Award. In each instance the Foreman of the
section involved was granted a paid vacation in accordance with the provisions of
the Vacation Agreement. The Assistant Foreman of the section assumed the Foreman's
duties during the vacation of the Foreman, and was paid the Foreman's rate of pay.
The Organization contends that the resultant vacancy in the Assistant Foreman's position should have been filled on a temporary basis during this period. Reliance is
placed upon Exhibit.14 appended to the Agreement, wherein is set forth the working
force (by title of position and number of employees) for specified sections within
particular Divisions of the Carrier's operations.
AWARD N0. 11
SPECIAL BOARD
293
_ 2 -
It is evident that the Assistant Foreman positions were still in effect
during the periods that the Assistant Foremen were temporarily upgraded due to
vacations of the Foremen. In line with the numerous interpretations of the
Vacation Agreement that have been issued in awards of the NRAB and of Special
Boards of Adjustment, it must be held that the Assistant Foreman positions in
question were not to be considered as vacancies during the periods that the Assistant Foremen were upgraded. The Vacation Agreement was not intended to be used as
a make-work device. Moreover, we are of the opinion that Exhibit 14 of the basic
agreement between the subject parties was not intended to go beyond the Vacation
Agreement in the sense here urged by the petitioner.
AL7ARD
Claims denied.
(s) Lloyd H. Bailer
Lloyd H. Bailer, Neutral Member
(s) A. J. Cunningham (s) C. S. Strang
A. J. Cunningham, Employe Member C. S. Strang, Carrier Member
Jersey City, N. J.
November
30, 1959