AWARDS 111 - YARDMASTER REQUIRED TO WORK OUTSIDE SENIORITY DISTRICT

Public Law Board No. 2593, Award No. 2 (O'Brien)

"The Carrier denies that the Claimant performed any service other than his normal supervisory duties. Since the Claimant is a Los Angeles Yardmaster, and the crew in question herein was a Los Angeles yard crew, the relaying of instructions to the yard crew from the clerk or trainmaster by the Claimant was an intergral (sic) part of his supervisory duties, the Carrier insists. It is not important, in the Carrier's view, that the yard crew was required to perform industrial switching in road territory. The yard crew was still under the Claimant's jurisdiction and responsibility. Thus, the Agreement was not violated, the Carrier maintains. Since the Organization has not introduced any provision of the Agreement which restricts a Yardmaster from supervising a yard crew beyond the switching limits of the yard, it is the position of the Carrier that the Organization has failed to support its claim. For the foregoing reasons, the Carrier requests that this Board deny the instant claim.

"In the opinion of this Board, the position of the Carrier in unacceptable. The fact that the yard crew in question performed industrial switching outside the yard limits indeed has bearing on this case, notwithstanding the Carrier's position to the contrary. In the instant case, the Claimant Yardmaster was required to perform supervisory duties in Gemco Yard while he was regularly assigned to Los Angeles Yardmaster Position No. 032. Clearly, the Claimant did not have authority to supervise a yard crew outside the switching limits of Los Angeles Yard. In our view, the Organization's position is persuasive. Since the Carrier required the Claimant to perform duties outside the scope of the collective bargaining Agreement, the claim for an additional day's pay must be allowed. The supervision of a Los Angeles yard crew performing industrial switching in Gemco Yard, is not, as alleged by the Carrier, an intergral (sic) part of the Claimant's supervisory duties as a Yardmaster at Los Angeles Yard."

Fourth Division Award No. 4306 (Suntrup)

". . . it is furthermore unclear from the record why the Carrier implemented unilaterally the seniority consolidating that it did if, at the same time, it thought further negotiated changes were necessary in Rule 3(b) in order to legitimately do so. The proposed changes sought were never signed by the Organization although the Carrier proceeded as if they had been. Nor did the Organization ever obtain assent of the General Chairman for the exercise of seniority relative to the case at bar as required by current Agreement Rule 5(d). On merits, the instant claim is sustained."

Fourth Division Award No. 4645 (Suntrup)

"The Board must conclude that since the Claimant's home district prior to the coordination was District 3, as outlined in Article 6(c), that remained his home district after the coordination. The Coordination Agreement of 1982 neither changed that, nor did it abolish the four districts outlined in that Article. Nor did the abolishment of the Yardmaster position at East Chicago Yard change the intent and applicability of Article 6(c). Further, the Board must agree with the Organization that the argument by the Terminal Superintendent which states that exercise of seniority in a district does not define areas of responsibility is one which renders the concept of districts obscure. Apparently this argument was put forth because the Yardmaster position in District 4 had been abolished.

"Article 6(c) places responsibilities on Yardmasters to select a home district or districts or `forfeit such seniority.' The latter must be of no small concern to all members of this craft. Section 1 of the 1982 Coordination Agreement clearly states that Article 6(c) continues to hold for all Yardmasters on the coordinated roster on the date of the coordination and that they will not be `required to accept Yardmaster work outside their "home" district.' That latter is what the Carrier was requiring the Claimant to do on the dates in question. The Carrier officers apparently thought that the two Agreements at bar, in tandem, permitted assignment of a Yardmaster from his home district to work in another, even if the Yardmaster did not choose to do so. The Agreements do not say that. For the Carrier to imply such represents arbitrary changes in seniority districts which the Board has held, under other but comparable circumstances, to be improper (Fourth Division Award 4306.) Should the Carrier wish to implement the procedures which is argues for in this case, the proper manner to do this would be to file a Section 6 Notice under the Railway Labor Act and negotiate such with the Organization, rather than attempt to gain such advantage from this Board whose sole function under Section 3 of the Act is to interpret labor agreements `as written' (Third Division Awards 21459, 21697, 23135)."

Third Division Award No. 28852 (Zusman)

"We have given serious study to the record and find that the seniority rights are `confined' to the seniority districts (Third Division Awards 24576, 25964). Kansas Division employees had no demonstrable rights in these instant circumstances to work on the Central Division. We are in agreement with Third Division Award 25964 which stated:

"`The Carrier further cites Rule 6 and 7, involving transfers on a temporary or permanent basis from one Seniority District to another. Whatever the application of such Rules, there is no showing that such is intended to contravene Rule 2. In any event, the incident here under review was not shown to be a "transfer" in any sense.'

"We find the Carrier violated Rule 2 of the Agreement. . . ."

Third Division Award No. 28928 (McAllister)

"From our review of the Rule and the circumstances involved in this case, we conclude the Carrier improperly moved the gang off its seniority district in violation of the Agreement. Rule 37 limits the seniority rights of employees to a single territory. The Carrier and the Organization did not enter into any Agreement which would authorize the gang to be moved elsewhere. Accordingly, the work performed by the Santa Clara Gang at the Fruitvale Tower was work which they had no right to perform. It was reserved to employees of the Sacramento Western Division."

Third Division Award No. 30181 (Marx)

"The work involved has Pittsburgh District work. Under what circumstances Pittsburgh District employees could or could not have been available to perform the work is not discussed. The work was assigned to others holding no Pittsburgh District seniority and lost to Pittsburgh District employees. The requested remedy is thus appropriate.

"In support of this is a closely similar recent case involving the same parties and the question of pay to an employee on duty at the time of the Rule violation. In that matter, Special Board of Adjustment No. 1016, Award 41, stated as follows:

'Important seniority rights are in question in this case, because an Employee whose name is on a seniority roster in an Agreement designated seniority district, owns a vested right to perform work in that seniority district that accrues to his standing and status on the district seniority roster. The Seniority District boundaries established by the parties' Agreement to protect and enforce that right, have been improperly crossed by the Carrier action, resulting in the Claimant's loss of work opportunities, . . .'

"Beyond this aspect, the Carrier argues that the two Claimants who were respectively on personal leave and on vacation are not appropriate Claimants, even if the Board otherwise sustains the Claim. The Claim concerns the work performed by six employees not holding Pittsburgh District seniority. It is not beyond practical consideration that these two employees, like the four others, might have been benefited had the work been properly assigned to Pittsburgh District employees. There is no basis to disqualify the Claimants as designated by the Claim.

* * *

"Claim sustained."

Third Division Award No. 30781 (Eischen)

"The facts at issue in Case No. 2 are identical to those presented in Case No. 1. However, the date of the occurrence was August 7, 1990 rather than August 9, 1990. Carrier also denied that claim, which is now before this Board.

"There is no dispute that on August 7 and 9, 1990, Carrier assigned the work at issue to Southern Railway Signal employees from a different seniority district under a different collective bargaining Agreement with the Organization. The fact that the Central of Georgia Railroad Company was acquired by the Southern Railway Company does not negate the fact that the territory encompassing the former Central of Georgia Railroad is a single seniority district, which is separate and distinct from other Southern Railway seniority districts. If Carrier chose to assign these particular tasks to signal employees, the work should have been assigned to signal employees with seniority on the appropriate District. Based on the foregoing, this claim must be sustained."