The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Harold M. Gilden when award was rendered.
SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 42, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'
DEPARTMENT, AFL-CIO (Sheet Metal Workers)
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Sheet Metal Workers T. W. Ogline, E. W. Bullock, Jr., H. B. DeLorie, J. W. Harris and C. J. Anderson, hereafter referred to as the claimants, are regularly employed by the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad, (formerly Atlantic Coast Line Railroad) hereinafter referred to as the carrier, in the carrier's shops, Lakeland, Florida, (J. W. Harris, since claim was made, has returned to his home point, Tampa) and were available to be called on their rest days and after bulletin hours.
On October 18, 1966, maintenance of way employes were assigned to install 2-inch fuel oil line and 11/z inch water line in Track No. 13 that is used in servicing caboose cars. Track No. 13 is located within the yards, just adjacent to the Round House where diesel locomotives are repaired. In addition to seniority roster of sheet metal workers in the Round House at Lakeland, a separate roster is maintained for the sheet metal workers in the car department. While for several years the mechanic in the car yard has been furloughed due to insufficient work for regular assignment, the sheet metal workers from the round house have performed all the sheet metal worker's work in the car yard including all air, water, fuel oil lines and sheet metal work in that department. Your board has further dealt with the principle here involved sr denial Award 4130, and held in part as follows:
"Relying on a literal interpretation of Rule 130, tire Claimants argue that the work under consideration exclusively belonged to them. However, the rule is well established that `literalness may strangle meaning.' See: Utah Junk Co. v. Porter, 328 U.S. 39, 44; 66 S. Ct. 889, 892 (1946); Lynch v. Overhoiser 369 U.S. 705, 710; 82 S. Ct. 1063, 1067 (1963). This is particularly true with respect to the application and interpretation of a labor agreement. The law is firmly settled that such an agreement, as a safeguard of industrial and social peace, should be given a broad and liberal interpretation consonant with its spirit and purpose -disregarding, as far as feasible, semantic technicalities or undue legalism which would tend to deprive the agreement of its vitality. See: Award 3954 of the Second Division and cases cited therein. Moreover, it is generally recognized in the law of labor relations that a labor agreement must be construed as a whole. Single words, sentences or sections cannot be isolated from the context in which they appear and be interpreted literally and independently, irrespective of the obvious or apparent intent and understanding of the parties as evidenced by the entire agreement.
In summary, we find that a consistent anti long-continue, practice well-known to and accepted by all interested parties has existed under which work of the nature here involved has been exempted from the scope of the labor agreement. This practice has become a part of the labor agreement although not explicitly expressed in it. See: United Steelworkers of America v. Warrior and Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. 574, 582; 80 S. Ct. 1347, 1352 (1960). It follows that the practice can be changed or discontinued only through a modification of the agreement. Section 3, First (i) of the Railway Labor Act does not confer authority upon us to do this."
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 record shows that the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes, as an interested party hereto, has been notified of the pendency of this proceeding and has been afforded an opportunity to be heard herein. We find, therefore, that the third party notice requirements of Section 3, First (j) of the Railway Labor Act have been satisfied.
At issue here is the alleged impropriety in October, 1966 in utilizing M of W employes to install 1,013 feet of 2 inch fuel oil supply line, and 11/a inch water supply line in Carrier's Transportation Yard at Lakeland, Florida. It is urged on behalf of the Organization that, in assigning this work to M of W water service employes, the job prerogatives preserved to the Sheet Metal Workers by Rules 27 and 302 of the former ACL Shop Crafts Agreement were intruded upon and usurped. It appears that a total of 95 man hours was required for this installation.
The unequivocal pronouncement in Rule 302 (the Sheet Metal Workers Classification of Work Rule) that "Sheet Metal Workers' work shall consist of tinning, copper-smithing, and pipe-fitting in shops, yards, buildings * * * " refutes that notion that such performance is limited to the confines of the shop areas. Patently, the wording is broad enough to include the work covered therein when performed at the Transportation Yard. Simply stated, there is no support in the Sheet Metal Workers' scope rule for the distinction the Carrier is trying to draw between work allocations in the Transportation Yard and those in the Shop Areas.
Where, as here, contract language is clear and unambiguous, a conflicting custom or past practice does not serve to alter its plain meaning. Since Rule 302 is applicable to the work in question, it would follow that Sheet Metal Workers should have been assigned to the handling thereof.
Accordingly, each of the claimants herein is entitled to recover 191/z hours pay (1/5th of the total 96 hours involved) at the applicable straight time rate. Heretofore, in similar disputes between these parties this Board has upheld the suitability -of the pro rata (in preference to the time and one-half rate) as the basis of recovery. See Awards 3868 and 4914, National Railroad Adjustment Board, Second Division.