The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee George S. Ives when award was rendered.
SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 109, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'
DEPARTMENT, AFL-CIO (Electrical Workers)
1. That under the current agreement the Carrier improperly assigned other than employes of the Electrical Workers Craft to rewire the old Tower Building at Atlantic City, N. J., from March 16th to April 30th, 1965, inclusive, at which time this building was completely renovated.
2. That accordingly, the Carrier be ordered to compensate the following Electricians: E. F. Behl, A. Billingshire, S. Meade, Jr., J. Merrill, F. Robinson and William Solly, divided among them the sum amounting to 16 hours each day involved at pro-rata-rate. All men named being available on their rest days, except J. Merrill, who was on furlough.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: The Pennsylvania-Reading Sea.hore Lines, hereinafter referred to as the Carrier, maintains inspection, epair and maintenance forces at the Camden, N. J. Engine House of the 'ennsylvania Railroad and the Atlantic City Terminal of the Pennsylvania.eading Seashore Lines, Atlantic City, N. J., all employes being on one sen)rity roster.
Under date of May 12, 1965, we presented claims to Mr. A. P. Ruscio, [otive Power Foreman, Camden, N. J., account of assigning other than ectrical workers to perform electrical work in the renovations and changes o the old Tower Building, at the Atlantic City Terminal (Old Engine House )cation). In the claim we listed all work performed. This letter is submitted Exhibit A.
Under date of May 24, 1965, Mr. Ruscio replied, denying our claim saying at the work in question was assigned to the proper craft. This letter is bmitted as Exhibit B.
Under date of July 12, 1965, we replied to Mr. Ruscio, this letter is subtted as Exhibit C.
Therefore, the Carrier respectfully requests your Board to dismiss or deny the claim of the Employes in this matter.
The Carrier demands strict proof by competent evidence of all facts relied upon by the Employes, with the right to test the same by cross-examination, the right to produce competent evidence in its own behalf at a proper trial of this matter, and the establishment of a proper record of all of the same.
All data contained herein have been presented to the employes involved or their representatives.
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 fundamental facts involved in this dispute are not in issue. On specified dates during March and April, 1965, two signalmen rewired Carrier's Old Tower Building, Atlantic City, New Jersey, in connection with the renovation of said building by Carrier. Petitioner contends that Carrier violated the effective Agreement between the parties by assigning other than regularly assigned electricians to perform such work.
Carrier avers that the installation and maintenance of electrical wiring in stations and buildings throughout its system have consistently been performed by signalmen since the formation of the Pennsylvania-Reading Seashore Line approximately thirty years ago, and that no rule of the appli2able Agreement or letters of understanding specifically assigns the disputed work to electricians, exclusively or otherwise. Carrier further contends that Petitioner has failed to offer any probative evidence in support of the in;tant claim, which should be dismissed for lack of proof.
Neither the scope rule nor any other provision of the effective Agreenent specifically provides that the disputed work is exclusively reserved to electricians, and Petitioner has failed to show that Electricians have perormed this work in the past anywhere on Carrier's system on an exclusive r other basis. Moreover, Carrier has offered competent evidence to support ;s contention that signalmen have consistently performed all installation and ewiring work in new or renovated buildings on Carrier's property for many ears.
Petitioner relies on a letter of January 16, 1952 from Master Mechanic leek to the Electricians' General Chairman as an admission by Carrier's Pficial that all electrical work on Carrier's system belongs to Electricians. Petitioner's Exhibit K). Analysis of said correspondence reveals its limed application to electrical maintenance work at specified locations, and
that the work involved herein was clearly not contemplated by Master Mechanic Fleck. Furthermore, Award 4445, cited by Petitioner, involved maintenance work at another location, which is readily distinguishable from the rewiring of a renovated building.
The fundamental issue found in this case is identical with that considered by this Division in our Award 5300, wherein the same parties advanced similar averments. We determined that Petitioner had failed to establish through competent evidence that the work of completely wiring a building customarily was assigned to electricians, and that employes other than electricians had performed such work for many years under similar circumstances. We find no meaningful distinction between re-wiring a renovated building and installing wiring in a new building, as both types of work are connected with construction and do not constitute maintenance work. Accordingly, we find Award 5300 controlling in the instant case under the principle of stare decisis. Therefore, the claim will be denied.