YARDMASTER DEPARTMENT AWARDS

ADJUSTMENT BOARD DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER CASES INVOLVING NON AGREEMENT EMPLOYEES (45)

AWARD # REFEREE RAILROAD
First Division Award 24135 Fletcher Huron and Eastern
First Division Award 24766 Hill Durham Transport, Inc.
Fourth Division Award 14 Hutson Seaboard Air Line
Fourth Division Award 4704 Carter Union Pacific
New York Dock - Section 11 Seidenberg Delaware & Hudson

New York Dock Section 11 (Seidenberg)

"We find that the grievant has misconstrued the provisions of the Railway Labor Act pertaining to the National Railroad Adjustment Board. The RLA provides for the NRAB to be composed of an equal number of Carrier representatives and labor union representatives. The NRAB has jurisdiction over disputes between an employee or a group of employees growing out of grievances or out of interpretations or applications of collective bargaining agreements concerning rates of pay, rules or working conditions. A covered employee may appear before the NRAB either in person, by counsel or by any other representative he or she may choose. However, the Grievant is in error if he believes that Paragraph (3) permits a non-union member to progress a claim or grievance before the NRAB. certainly there is no legislative sanction for a Carrier official to utilize the procedures of the NRAB."

Fourth Division Award No. 14

"The evidence shows that the petitioner was in general charge of the Live Stock Claim Department of the respondent carrier with a system office located at Jacksonville, Florida. The evidence further shows that he was in general charge of the investigations (field and office), authorizing and approving the amounts to be disbursed and the issuance and signing of the drafts drawn in payment, all of which indicates the scope, character and discretionary power with which he was vested. Such duties compare with those of Chief Claim Agent or Assistant General Claim Agent which are classified as `Official Positions' in I. C. C. Ex Parte No. 72; therefore, the division is without jurisdiction.

"AWARD Case dismissed."

Fourth Division Award No. 4704 (Carter)

"The Board does not have jurisdiction over any dispute involving Claimant's dismissal while employed in a nonagreement supervisory capacity. Further, the Board has been referred to no rule requiring that the Carrier permit Claimant to make a displacement on an Agreement covered position upon dismissal from service in a nonagreement supervisory capacity. It is clear from the record that Claimant was not returning from a nonagreement position, but was removed from the nonagreement position for improper activity.

"The record before the Board contains evidence that on October 28, 1986, Claimant attempted to place himself as a machinist at Fort Worth, Texas, but was withheld from service pending an investigation. This Board has no jurisdiction over any dispute involving Claimant's rights as a machinist. However our attention has been invited to Second Division Award 11701 rendered on March 22, 1989, involving the same Claimant as involved herein, in which the request that Claimant be restored to service as a machinist was denied."

First Division Award No. 24135 (Fletcher)

"In September 1989, Petitioner, a furloughed CSX employee, accepted employment with the Huron and Eastern Railway Company, Inc. As one of ten train service employees in the service of this Carrier, his employment, wages and working conditions were not covered by the terms of a formal Collective Bargaining Agreement. Wages, Vacations and Profit Sharing, the three items on which Petitioner is seeking a monetary adjustment before this Board, were established by `verbal agreement' or by Company policy. During the first week in May 1990, Petitioner gave Carrier a one week notice that he was accepting recall with CSX Transportation. He was not used after giving notice and contends that this was termination without just cause.

"In its response to Petitioner's submission, Carrier filed a counterclaim seeking return of $600.00 which it contended Claimant had improperly been paid.

"In First Division Award 23909 this Board stated:

"`It is well settled that the jurisdiction of the Board is restricted by statute to disputes involving "the interpretation or application of labor agreements." The record before the Board, however, reveals there is no Collective Bargaining Agreement in effect on this Carrier and, therefore, there are no Agreement rules to interpret or apply.'

"Accordingly, this Board has no alternative but to dismiss the Claim. For a similar holding see First Division Award 24059 and Fourth Division Awards 4410, 4478, 4508, 4510 and 4548."

First Division Award No. 24766 (Hill)

"Mr. Peters, prior to his dismissal by Durham Transport, was an "employee at will," not represented by a labor organization, and not covered under any applicable collective bargaining agreement. Accordingly, the Board is without jurisdiction to grant any remedy to Mr. Peters. The Railway Labor Act, as amended (RLA), does not empower the Board to create a contract of employment, a collective bargaining agreement, or a remedy for an "at will" employee. As such, Mr. Peters’ claim must be dismissed. See, First Division Awards 24098, 23909, 21870, and Fourth Division Awards 4507, 4513, 4548. See also, Thomas v. New York C. & S.L.R.R., 185 F.2d 614 (6th Cir. 1950).'


Yardmaster Subject Index

Last modified: April 29, 2005