The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Livingston Smith when the award was rendered.
SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 150, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'
DEPARTMENT AFL-CIO (Sheet Metal Workers)
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: The carrier maintains a force of seventeen (17) sheet metal workers employed on the first shift shown on the force statement, with working hours 7:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. with twenty minutes for lunch. This includes five (5) regular relief assignments with five days of work and two consecutive rest days to do work on rest days, all of which are seven day assignments.
The carrier assigned electricians to refiare pipe joints, disconnect and connect pipes and pipe connections and repair leaks in pipes on water cooler for PRR Coach 4003, February 13, 1956.
Sheet Metal Worker T. Otte and Sheet Metal Worker Helper J. Williams, hereinafter referred to as the claimants, were available to perform this work if called on their rest days.
POSITION OF EMPLOYES: It is submitted that under letters of February 28, 1940 and April 16, 1940, the parties agreed on procedure to deal with questions of work that may be in dispute; copies of these letters are submitted herewith and identified as Exhibits A and B.
System Federation No. 150 or the organization involved in this dispute never did complete negotiations of this dispute with the carrier, as set forth in the February 28, 1940 Jurisdictional Agreement. In fact the federation refused to reply to questions raised by the carrier. Is a carrier obligated to accept and apply a jurisdictional issue which was settled between two crafts without any negotiations as to how the two craft settlement will be applied? The answer is absolutely "No". This carrier or any other carrier has the right to accept or reject a jurisdictional issue settled between two crafts. To make a jurisdictional issue effective it must be a tripartite agreement.
The Jurisdictional Disputes Agreement of February 28, 1940 states after the two crafts settle an issue, the federation must negotiate with management for acceptance by management. The transfer of work from one craft to another craft can only be done by negotiation and by agreement and the two organizations and management must be in unanimous agreement.
The carrier respectfully requests the Second Division to dismiss this claim as this is an unsettled jurisdictional dispute and not a proper time claim. The sheet metal workers have the necessary machinery to handle under the jurisdictional Disputes Agreement to which they are a party and not request your Honorable Board to settle a jurisdictional question which they themselves have agreed to settle under the 1940 agreement.
The Agreement between The Cincinnati Union Terminal Company and System Federation No. 150 was open and amended July 15, 1945 and was again open and amended September 1, 1949 and there was no mention of changing the present method of repairing electric water coolers in passenger cars.
FINDINGS: The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds 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 confronting dispute involves the alleged improper performance of work by electrical workers of work belonging to the craft here involved. The record indicates that these two crafts, namely, the electricians and sheet metal workers, have entered into an agreement for the settlement of jurisdictional disputes. There is further evidence in the record that this agreement was confirmed by correspondence between the two crafts involved. As to the procedure to be followed in settling jurisdictional differences, the following understanding was arrived at:
Pursuant to the above understanding an agreed to settlement of the issues here involved was submitted to the carrier by the Secretary-Treasurer of System Federation No. 1.50 on September 14, 1956, with the following request:
It is here noted that no conference has ever been requested by the System Federation involved, in accordance with the requirements of the above understanding, nor have any negotiations been conducted between the parties with management leading to the acceptance of such understanding.
It being evident that the employes here involved have recognized the socalled jurisdictional dispute agreement as having application to the confronting dispute, the agreement must be followed to the end that all the procedures are exhausted before pursuing a different cause of action. We are of the opinion, and so hold that this case is prematurely presented to this Board.
Remanded to the parties for further handling in accordance with the provisions of the jurisdictional dispute agreement.