EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Diesel 604 was shopped at Radnor, Tennessee, December 1, 1955 for repairs to a traction motor blower.
Three electricians removed the entire traction motor blower housing from the engine, dismantled it, removed and replaced the fan on the shaft, assembled the blower housing and installed it on the engine.
The work of removing and applying the traction motor blower of Diesel 604 was the first such work ever performed at this shop, and to do the work involved the tools were borrowed from the NC&St.L., shops nearby.
The dispute has been handled with each carrier official, including the highest designated officer, without securing a satisfactory settlement.
The agreement of September 1, 1943, as amended, is controlling in the dispute.
POSITION OF EMPLOYES: It is submitted that the assignment of electricians to remove, dismantle, repair, assemble and install the traction motor blower of Diesel 604 unjustly deprived the claimants of the benefits they were entitled to, and the officer in charge failed to comply with the agreement provisions that are applicable to such conditions as here involved, particularly Rules 30 and 55:
which is being performed by another. On October 31, 1949, the general chairmen of the electricians and machinists submitted a letter to the management in which they advised that they would not request management to take work away from one class and give it to another. The carrier has made an honest effort to get representatives of the machinists and electricians together in an attempt to arrive at some understanding in the settlement of claims of the foregoing nature. To date it has been unable to do so.
In this particular instance the officer in charge at Radnor, Tennessee, felt that inasmuch as electricians had performed work of a similar nature on steam locomotives, it was proper to assign the work in dispute to electricians. In these circumstances, we feel there has been no violation of the agreement and the claim should be declined. The work in question is not spelled out in Rule 55 of the current agreement.
Another reason for denying the claim is that it has not been filed on behalf of any employe as provided in time limit rule of August 21, 1954, adopted by this carrier on May 20, 1955, which provides in part:
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.
This docket discloses that on claimed date electricians were assigned by the carrier to remove, dsimantle and repair a traction motor blower housing with fan. The brotherhood urges that Rules 30 and 55 were violated by this action, with which conclusion this Division agrees. However, we note a slight factual dispute in one particular.
The organization says "three electricians removed," etc, but does not show that they each worked eight hours. The carrier says "Electricians were assigned" etc, but does not say how many men or how long they worked.
The claim hereof is for eight hours punitive pay for three machinists to be designated later. We are of the opinion that the claim should be allowed 3014-4 5¢