SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0.
488
BROTHERHOOD OF M4INTEDTANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES
and
THE BALTIMORE AND OHIO PAILRMD COMNY
AWARD IN DOCIOT N0. 1
STNTEMENT "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
OF CIAIM:
(1) The Carrier violated the effective Agreement by failing to call
Substitute Foreman Alvin E. Archinal, Section No.
16212
for overtime work due to a
derailment at Tippecanoe, Ohio, on Section No.
16212,
Saturday, November
28, 1959.
(2)
That Substitute Foreman Alvin E. Archinal be now paid
14-1/2
hours
at his respective pro rata pay, account of the Carrier's violation of the Agreement."
FINDINGS: The question at issue here revolves on the effect which "The Rearrange-
ment of Track Forces" Agreement of April 1,
1959
had upon the seniority
rights of trackman as they existed under the April 1,
1951
Agreement.
We have fully examined these agreements, including the document entitled
"Questions and Answers on the Rearrangement of Track Forces as agreed to in conference on July
29, 1959"
as well as the
97
transcript pages utilized by the parties
in their presentations and argument before this Board.
In consequence, we believe a sustaining Award is in order for the following six
reasons:
1. The
1951
Agreement (Rule 6(a)) restricted the seniority rights of trackmen
as such to their respective gangs, with one exception: that in force reduction, trackmen with
3
months' or more seniority could displace trackmen
junior in the service under one supervisor. When the force was increased,
or a permanent vacancy occurred "in gang in which original seniority was
held" trackman who had previously exercised their seniority beyond the
limits of their basic gang into the territory of the supervisor must return
to their original gang within 20 days or forfeit such gang seniority.
2. The "Rearrangement Agreement" of
1959
changed the trackman's rights as described in paragraph No. 1 by granting to such trackman an extension of
his seniority rights to new positions or vacancies from his "respective
gang" to the "territory over which one Track Supervisor has ,jurisdiction."
In case of force reduction, the trackmen continued to have the right to
displace junior men on their Track Supervisor's territory.
3.
In so doing, however, the parties did not destroy the trackman's basic gang
seniority; it extended it so far as new positions or vacancies are concerned.
4.
The "Rearrangement Agreement" further provides that where temporary vacancies
or new positions of trackman are to be filled pending bulletin, preference
will be given in seniority order to furloughed employees who last worked
r ~.7!
s
t3 P· yg~
- 2 - Docket No. 1
in that "gang". The parties made no distinction as between Extra Gang or
Section Gang.
5.
We cannot agree with Carrier argument that the "Rearrangement Agreement"
relegated Section Gangs to the role of patrol gangs, and nothing else.
Patrolling is part of their assignment, but the performance of work the
"gang is capable of doing" is an assignment of some substance if the trackmen are experienced trackman. They evidently are because they hold these
jobs on the basis of long years of seniority.
6.
Rule 18(b) was not in the least affected by the "Rearrangement Agreement."
The day upon which the derailment occurred was not a part of any assignment;
there were no available extra or unassigned employees, and Carrier should
have first called the regular employee -- the claimant in this Docket.
AWARD
Claim sustained.
(s) Edward A. Lynch
Edward A. Lynch, Chairman
(s) A. J. Cunningham
A. J. Cunningham, Employee Member T. S. Woods, Carrier Member
Dated at Baltimore, Md.,
this 26th day of March,
1963.