Award No. 2542
Docket No. 2218
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
SECOND DIVISION
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Carl R. Schedler when the award was rendered.
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 1®5, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'
DEPARTMENT, A. F. of L. (Sheet Metal Workers)
THE NORTHERN PACIFIC TERMINAL COMPANY OF OREGON
DISPUTE: CLAIM OF EMPLOYES:
1. That under the current agreement the Carrier improperly
assigned other than Sheet Metal Workers to relocate a door and
window in the east wall and relocate a spray room partition, which is
of sheet metal construction in the Paint Shop at Guilds Lake, on or
about February 1, 1953.
2. That accordingly the Carrier be ordered to:
a) Discontinue the use of other than Sheet Metal
Workers to perform this work.
b) Compensate Sheet Metal Workers Frank R. Paola,
John Harney, Wm. H. Marshall in the amount of 16 hours
pay, and Sheet Metal Workers Clifford L. Humphrey, Wm.
H. Lewis and Alfred S. Smith for 8 hours each at their
respective rates of pay.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On or about the first of February, 1953, the carrier started work of relocating a door and window in the
east wall of paint shop at Guilds Lake and relocating spray room partition,
which is of sheet metal construction, and over the protest of local committee
employes of the Maintenance of Way Department were assigned.
This dispute has been handled with the carrier up to and including the
highest officer so designated by the company, with the result that he has declined to adjust it.
The Union Pacific agreement effective September 1, 1949 is controlling.
POSITION OF EMPLOYES:
It is submitted that the action of the
carrier in this dispute is contrary to the provisions of the rules of current
agreement when Maintenance of Way employes were assigned to work that
[8737
2542--10
882
"We are not unmindful that it would be possible to divide many
craft operations into their component elements, to then say that
certain of those elements are purely manual or unskilled in nature,
and that unskilled employes should therefore be assigned to perform
such tasks. We do not deny that such a procedure could be used to
dilute the work jurisdiction of skilled employes, and to violate an
existing scope rule.
"We do not think the incident here disputed is an example of
the above-described procedure, however, nor are we of the opinion
that a denial award in this case would support the doctrine which
the petitioner apparently fears. In our judgment, the contention
that carrier violated the pertinent scope rules by assigning a laborer
to hold the rope is to place a strained construction upon said rules.
"Claim denied."
Some interesting and pertinent observations were made in Third Division
Award No.
4512
(and quoted in Award 4879), a case where the B & B
men were the claimants. The majority with Referee Kelliher stated in part:
"While B & B employes have always fitted and installed doors
and windows, when needed in connection with the repair and maintenance of Carrier's buildings, it appears that prior to the mill room
being equipped for the construction thereof the Carrier usually and
customarily purchased prefabricated doors and windows in the open
market and delivered them to the B & B employes in that condition
for the purpose of fitting and installing. No objection is made to
that practice. After the installation of the equipment in the mill
the fabrication or construction thereof was usually performed
therein on orders from the Store Department. In either event the
Scope of the Brotherhood's Agreement does not extend to the fabrication thereof but only to the fitting and installation, after they
are delivered for that purpose."
There can be no doubt about the proper use of the B & B men to perform the work here in dispute, and that the sheet metal workers have no
valid claim whatsoever to same.
CONCLUSION:
It has been clearly and definitely shown by the carrier that, first, this
case should be dismissed unless the B & B men are duly and properly
notified by this Division of the pendency of this dispute; and second, if not
so dismissed, the claims should be denied account not supported by agreement rules, past practice, or Adjustment Board awards.
The carrier earnestly and respectfully so requests.
FINDINGS: The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the
whole record and all the evidence, find that:
The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this
dispute are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June
21, 1934.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute
involved herein.
The parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.
The claim in this dispute is identical with the claim in Docket No.
2217.
In the instant case the building erected was a
36
x 20 foot paint shop. We
27,42-11
will dismiss this claim for the same reasons as stated in Docket No. 2217.
(Award 2541).
AWARD
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of SECOND DIVISION
ATTEST: Harry J. Sassaman
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 8th day of July, 1957.
0