|
Award
No. 15 PUBLIC
LAW BOARD NO. 4897 PARTIES Union Pacific Railroad Company DISPUTE:
and United Transportation Union (C&T) STATEMENT
OF CLAIM: Claim of Conductor D.
B. Curtin and Brakemen, T. FINDINGS Upon the whole record, after
hearing, 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 under Public Law 89-456 and has
jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter. On July 1, 1979, Claimants
were assigned to the North Platte, Nebraska Interdivisional Freight
Pool. On the particular date, Conductor Fare's turn stood ahead of
Claimant's turn on the Board. Because Conductor Paro, and his entire
regular crew, were not available, and because both the conductors and
brakeman's extra boards were exhausted at North Platte, Conductor
Paro's turn was blanked. The next out pool turn was called thereafter
and in line were the Claimants herein. According to Carrier, Claimants
went to work and worked on their regular pool turn in their regular
interdivisional freight service from North Platte to Council Bluffs.
The Organization, on the other hand, insisted that Claimants were
being set up under the provisions of Schedule Rule Items 92 (s) and
92(t). Petitioner insists that
Claimants herein were used in irregular service instead of on their
regular turns, as a result of Carrier's actions. The Organization
maintains that there are no rules or agreements, which permit Carrier
to permit blank pool turns under any conditions. Furthermore, when a
pool turn is blanked, it in essence constitutes a reduction in the
pool. This action cannot take place on a temporary basis, as was done
in the instant case. Furthermore, there are many agreements and means
to permit Carrier to provide conductors and brakemen to fill vacancies
when extra boards are exhausted. Those means were not used in this
instance. Finally, the Organization maintains that Rule Items 92 (s)
and (d) provide for compensation, as claimed in this case, when crews
are withheld from their regular turns and use in regular service.
Carrier argues that it has
always had the right to blank or annul assignments. This right has not
been negotiated away in the agreements. Furthermore, in the instant
case, the Claimant's crew was used to work their turn in the
appropriate service and were first out and were called for their
regular assignment. Thus, there was nothing incorrect in the handling
of this crew from the beginning. Once Conductor Paro and his crew were
unavailable, according to Carrier, and once the extra boards were
exhausted, Carrier followed the common sense and long-standing
practice of blanking that turn and calling the next crew in turn for
their regular assignment. In addition, Carrier argues that the
Organization has failed to meet its burden of identifying a rule or
agreement, which requires the relinquishment of Carrier's right to
blank an assignment. From the Board's point of
view, the crux of this matter is Carrier's right to blank a turn, as
they did in this instance. In the case at bar here, when Conductor
Paro's turn was blanked, all three members of the crew were
unavailable and the Extra Boards were exhausted. Therefore, Claimant's
turn became first out. There have been innumerable awards in the past,
upholding a Carrier's right to annul an assignment such as that
herein, and call another regularly assigned crew to the same class of
service and stands to be called, as Claimants here. In that
circumstance, the crew called is not filling a vacancy which was
cancelled, but rather is filling its own vacancy (see for example
Award No. 18 of Public Law Board 193, Award No. 5 of Public Law Board
3318 and Award No. 119 of Public Law Board No. 88). Perhaps one of the
clearest indications of Carrier's rights in this particular
circumstance, was enumerated in 1st Division Award 12554 as follows:
Several other observations
are in order. In this instance, the turn cease to exist when Conductor
Paro's turn was blanked. Conductor Curtin and his crew were then
properly called for service on the interdivisional pool to which they
were assigned. They were not assigned in irregular service but in
their normal assignment. There are no rules supporting the claim in
fact. As Carrier pointed out, the handling in this instance is a
common one. Whenever an entire crew is unavailable and both extra
boards are exhausted, the Carrier blanks a turn, as it did in this
instance. This Board will not deny Carrier the right to blank a
position as requested by Petitioner. That right can only be negotiated
away rather than dealt with by a Board such as this. AWARD Claim denied. I.M. Lieberman,
Neutral-Chairman G. A. Eickmann,
Employee Member Scott Hinckley,
Carrier Member Omaha, Nebraska
|