The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Jacob Seidenberg when award was rendered.
SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 114, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'
DEPARTMENT, A. F. of L. - C. I. O. (Machinists)
DISPUTE: CLAIM OF EMPLOYES: 1-That under the current agreement the Carrier's arbitrary unauthorized contracting-out of Machinists' work, consisting of removing a defective starting motor and installation of a new unit on Dump Truck NWP 053 on August 3, 1962, to an outside firm identified as the Comanche Chevrolet Garage, Santa Rosa, California, was improper, in violation of the collective bargaining contract.
2-That accordingly, the Carrier be ordered to additionally compensate Machinist John Gregorowicz (hereinafter referred to as claimant), in the amount of four (4) hours additional compensation at the pro rata rate of pay, account Carrier depriving claimant and other machinists subject to all terms of the parties contract the right to perform work coming within the scope of said contract, when the work referred to hereinabove was contracted to, and was performed by employes of above named firm who are not subject to any terms of the controlling agreement.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: The work here involved has been properly recognized by agreement and practice as work of the machinist craft coming within the scope of the current agreement. There is no dispute in the record regarding this fact.
It is an established fact, not subject to dispute, that in recognition of applicable provisions of the current agreement, it has been a consistent accepted practice for machinists subject to the terms of said agreement, to perform the work here involved on carrier's automobiles, trucks and other automotive equipment at carrier's shops, including on-line of road. No dispute appears in the record regarding this fact.
Claimant including another machinist were at Ignacio, California on August 3, 1962 waiting for Dump Truck NWP 053 to arrive at said Point with a Bull Dozer, which was being towed to Ignacio by said dump truck for loading on a flat car, the loading of which was to be performed by claimant
In each of the above awards, your honorable board found that machinists had no exclusive right either by agreement or by practice to the work of repairing over-the-road vehicles owned by the carriers involved, and denied the employes' claims.
The instant dispute is similar as to the facts and rules, and it is clear that your Honorable Board must consistently make the same finding herein and deny the claim.
To summarize, the carrier has definitely established the fact that for 27 years the carrier's over-the-road automotive equipment has been repaired and maintained by:
Carrier has also shown that the rules referred to by the petitioner in support of its claim do not give machinists the exclusive right to repair and maintain over-the-road automotive equipment.
The carrier has established the fact that the Petitioner in the past has recognized not only the practice but the fact that there were no provisions in the agreement giving machinists the exclusive right to repair and maintain over-the-road automotive equipment.
In past awards, this board has denied claims which were similar to the instant dispute.
CONCLUSION: The carrier asserts that the claim in this docket is entirely lacking in either merit or agreement support and therefore requests that said claim, if not dismissed, be denied.
FINDINGS: The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:
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 Division finds that the Petitioner's contention is not well founded in maintaining that the Carrier violated the current Agreement when it utilized an outside garage to remove a defective starting motor and install a new one on a dump truck.
The Division arrives at this conclusion, in part, because it does not find any support for the claim in the express provisions of either Rule 56, Rule 30, Rule 32 or the Memorandum "A" dated November 1, 1942.
Rule 56, the "Classification of Work" rule, relied upon heavily by the Petitioner, in its relevant portion states:
Upon analysis of the Rule however, the Division concludes that it does not give the Organization the exclusive right to repair automotive equipment. The Division can find no support for the Organization's contention that the word "engine" in the Rule contemplated automotive equipment powered by a gasoline engine. The contention is too remote because engine is a generic term and is too broad to have specific relevance to the equipment in issue in this claim. The Division has already ruled on this matter in Award No. 4259.
In addition there are other facts of record which militate against the Division holding that Rule 56 bestows exclusive jurisdiction upon the Petitioner to repair automotive equipment. These facts are that the Carrier has utilized equipment since 1937 and has employed four sources to repair said equipment. These sources have been the Southern Pacific's Maintenance of Way Shops, the Carrier's Traveling Motor Car Repairmen, outside garages, and the Maintenance of Equipment Department.
In 1951, the Organization's General Chairman wrote the Carrier asking that consideration be given members of the Organization for automotive repair work. This request was made notwithstanding the fact that Rule 56 was part of the Agreement executed in 1942, and the Carrier had been using automotive equipment since 1937. Such precatory action by the General Chairman does not indicate the assertion of an exclusive contract right under a pre-existing valid Agreement.
The Division also finds that the exhibits attached to the Petitioner's Submission purporting to show its exclusive right to perform the work are not in point because these exhibits do not refer to automotive equipment.
In brief, neither the present contract nor past practice support the instant claim.