The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee George S. Ives when award was rendered.
SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 41, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'
DEPARTMENT, AFL-CIO (Electrical Workers)
THE CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO RAILWAY COMPANY
(Southern Region)
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 essential facts involved in this dispute are not in issue. Petitioner contends that Carrier violated Rule 140 of the controlling agreement on specified dates during the month of January, 1965, when seven (7) telephone linemen of the Communication Department were assigned to cut, thread, fit and install two (2) inch conduit for communication lines between offices and buildings at Carrier's Reclamation Plant in Barboursville, West Virginia, instead of the named claimants, who are regularly employed as Shop Electricians at the Reclamation Plant. Petitioner avers that the disputed work belongs exclusively to Shop Electricians under the applicable language of the Agreement, and seeks additional compensation for the claimants commensurable with the total number of hours required by the linemen to complete the disputed assignment.
Carrier contends that Rule 140 of the effective Agreement does not grant to Shop Electricians the exclusive right to install communication conduit as opposed to conduit for wires carrying electrical energy; that even if the applicable Rule of the Agreement provided a basis for intra-craft division of work, Rule 141 would grant to linemen the right to install communication conduit; and that established practice on a system wide basis as to the installation of conduit for communication purposes supports the disputed assignment of conduit work in this case.
Petitioner primarily relies on the language of the Agreement to support its position that the disputed work belongs exclusively to Shop Electricians. Analysis of Rule 140 discloses that the preface to the rule is. confined to "electric wiring", which the Carrier insists does not include communication lines. Petitioner asserts that "communication wires" carry electric energy within the purview of paragraphs 17 and 22 of Rule 140, and that the installation of conduits to contain such "communication wires" constitutes work to be performed by Shop Electricians at the Barboursville Reclamation Plant to the exclusion of all other employes, despite contrary past practice at other points throughout Carrier's System. The gravamen of Petitioner's claim is that the pertinent language of Rule 140 is clear and unambiguous, which cannot be superseded by conflicting practice.
In the first instance, the record establishes that both Linemen and Shop Electricians are represented by the Petitioner for the purposes of collective bargaining under the same Agreement and both are Members of the Electricians' Craft. The disputed work of installing conduits in this case was an incidental part of Carrier's installation of new circuits supplied by the telephone company at the Reclamation Plant, and the telephone wires were actually installed by employes of the Telephone Company, rather than by Carrier's employes.
The record further reveals that communication employes have made comparable conduit installations at other points throughout Carrier's System where Shop Electricians are employed, and that the dispute at Barboursville, West Virgina is not an isolated case. Thus, the pivotal question for determination is whether the pertinent language of Rule 140 explicitly includes conduit installation in connection with the installation of communication lines as well as general electric wiring, which carries electric energy for the operation of various devices and equipment.
Despite Petitioner's averment that the broad language found in Rule 140 encompasses the installation of all conduits for any wiring which transmits .or carries electrical impulses, including communication lines, past practice as well as the provisions of Rule 141 of the applicable Agreement suggest that both classifications, Shop Electricians and Linemen, may install conduit to be wised for the protection of telephone lines and cables under varying circumstances. Consequently, we must conclude that the provisions of Rule 140, relied on by Petitioner, are neither clear nor explicit, and that Petitioner has failed to establish through probative evidence that the disputed work is customarily performed by Shop Electricians to the exclusion of all other employes of the Carrier, including communication employes. Therefore, the instant claim will be denied.