The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Jesse Simons when award was rendered.
SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 2, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'
DEPARTMENT, AFL-CIO (Electrical Workers)
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACT: Telephone Maintainers C. R. Qualls and G. C. Burton, hereinafter referred to as the claimants, are employed by the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, hereinafter referred to as the carrier, at Kansas City, Missouri.
On June 27, 1969 there was a derailment at Kansas City, Missouri causing excessive damage to a line pole supporting a communication cable in the hump service, as well as the power line. After the derailment was cleared, it was necessary to straighten the line pole and in so doing the communication cable was removed from the pole, re-wrapped with spinning wire and then replaced after the pole had been placed in its proper upright position. Ignoring the fact that this was Telephone Maintainer's work, Supervisor Highfill instructed Signal Foreman Smith and Signalman Crawford to perform the above work, both of whom are assigned to the Signal Department and who hold no seniority as Telephone Maintainers. Additionally, a foreman performing work is not consistent with the agreement of June 1, 1960 or the September 25, 1964 agreement.
I would like to call your Honorable Board's attention to the Claimants' Exhibit D which clearly states (that)
The foregoing rule provides that telephone maintainers will be paid a monthly rate "to cover all services rendered except as hereinafter provided." The exceptions apply only to the sixth and seventh days of the work week. The work in dispute in this docket occurred on Tuesday, July 29, 1969, which was one of the first five work days of both of the claimants. Accordingly, the monthly rate covers all services performed by the claimants on that date and claimant would not have been compensated additionally if used to perform the hour and one-half work required to rehang the cable.
Your Board has pointed out in previous awards that telephone maintainers are not entitled to additional compensation in such cases. For example, in Award 4086 (Howard A. Johnson) your Board found:
Your Board in Award 4086 denied the claim. The same result follows here. Claimants have been allowed their monthly rate .for July, 1969, and are not entitled to additional compensation.
Although the claim clearly is not supported by the rules, we. also point out that there is no basis for selecting telephone maintainers Qualls and Burton as claimants since Qualls was in Nebraska City when the work was performed and Burton had worked the night before and seas due to work again that same night and was not on duty to perform the work. Telephone maintainers were on duty during the day on the date of claim in the Kansas City terminal and could have been used if such work had been contracted to telephone maintainers exclusively.
For the reasons stated, the claim is not supported by the rules and is entirely lacking in merit and should be denied.
FINDINGS: The Second Division f 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 record in this dispute does not disclose, nor has this Board been able to locate in the files of the Adjustment Board any rule or memorandum agreement cletailing the work jurisdiction of Telephone Maintainers. Examination of Rule 107 (c) discloses that it is bereft of a detailed delineation of the work jurisdiction of Telephone Maintainers.
Organization cites violation of Rule 26 and of the June 1, 1960 agreement. Yet the implementation or invocation of said rule requires as a prerequisite, an extant rule or agreement defining the work jurisdiction of Telephone Maintainers. As noted above, this Board has neither such a rule or an agreement before it, and thus the Organization's claimed violation cannot be tested, and therefore said claim necessarily lacks inherent merit.
The Organization also cites violation of Article 3 of the September 25, 1964 Agreement as having been violated. The record does not disclose any proof that a foreman performed craft duties in excess of that specifically provided for and allowed in Article 3. Therefore this aspect of Organization's claim is found lacking merit in that Organization has not supplied the requisite measure of proof of the existence of a violation.
The Organization places great weight, in advancing its claim, on a statement contained in Carrier's letter of January 7, 1970, to Electrician's General Chairman, as follows:
Such a unilateral definition of work jurisdiction by Carrier's representative, even though not specifically denied or contradicted in Carrier's brief, is not for a number of reasons sufficient, standing by itself, to warrant an Award sustaining the claim. Among those reasons, is that the Board is not disposed to establish a precedent of defining work jurisdiction solely on the grounds of a single statement by a management representative.