1.









( System Federation No. 45, Railway Employes'
 ( Departmentp A. F. of-L. - C. I. 0.
 Parties to Dispute: ( (Machinists)
 (
 (St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company

 DiSD Ute: Claim of Employes:





-·' .adins:
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 Carrier in this case has purchased a fleet of utility-motor scooter vehicles powered by gasoline engines. These vehicles are used by-various employes to move from one work area to another, transport material., inspect.. and for other time-saving purposes. This equipment first was received at East St. Louis where machinists performed the routine servicing-and maintenance until all vehicles were placed in service in 1967. Since this time carmen have performed service and maintenance functions. Similar vehicles were acquired for the Pine Bluff, Arkansas location in 1969 and later for the Shreveport, Louisiana location. In all of these locations the carmen, the using craft,, have performed service and maintenance functions.
 Form 1
 Page 2

 Award Ho. 6335

Docket No. 6158

2-SLSW-MA-'72


Machinists have-objected to_Ws allocation of work for some time.. In 1967 and 1968 employes filed a claim-. at East St.' Louis., and they were denied by the Carrier sand never ruled'on by this Board. In 1970 the employes in this case filed the present claim contending that repair and maintenance on motor scooter vehicles belonged to the Machinists.

 The Carrier resists this claim on the procedural grounds that it is merely the refiling of previous claims and therefore.is.barred under the time limit provisions of Article V of the August 21, 1954 Agreement. The Carrier also cites a number of prior awards to support its case. See Second Division Awards: 4924; 4554; 3234; 2177. A careful reading of these awards establishes the principle that a subsequent claim which is identical to a previous claim will .be barred. In these awards the claims were identical because they involved.the same.~employes and the same -subject matter. Article V of the 1954 Agreement adopts the same principle. It provides in Section 1(c):

 ,_.,"AL1 claims... , involved in a,decision.by the highest designated-officer sha31 be barred-unless, within 9 months from the date of,,said-:officer's decision, proceedings are instituted b the a loyee or his duly _authorized representative. . . Emphasis added

 Under this provision a claim is barred if the employe claimant or his representative does not take, action,:within . the prescribed time -limit.

 The Carrier's contention that this claim is barred confuses the principle established, in prior:ayards,and Article V l.(e).and the precedence value of prior decisions. The running:of the, time limit under Article V bars any further action by claimants) in that. case. The decision by the highest officer on the property has precedent value for subsequent cases involving the same or similar contract interpretation questions.. :The resolution of. such questions establishes precedent., but it does not prevent other employes from contending that their contract rights were violated. Admittedly in this cases the contract question and the subject matter in the dispute are,identical with former claims. The claimant., however, is different.'-'His 'rights uhder applicable agreements should be determined in his claim not anothe>S..employe's-case. .The..earlier.decision of the highest officer on the property merely.. establishes practice-sand precedent. Under Article V. (a) and_ (b), . claims that are allowed to.lapse~before they-reach.the highest officer on the property "shall not be.coriqidered as-a,pxecedent or,:wa,iver of the contentions of the Carrier (or employe s)~.as to,oth6r-simil4r claims or grievances:""This Board, therefore holds that this -claim is non baxred tiypre-vi.ous claims involving different claimants.

 A Carrier might -be concerend about~a multiplicity of claims raising similar questions. Once practices and_precedents;have~teeh established, however, employees and their representatives are not likely to pursue fruitless and spurious claims.
 Form 1 Award No. 6335
 Page 3 Docket No. 6158
 2-SLSW-MA-'72

 The Claimant in this case contends that the Carrier violated Rule 43, Classification of Work., when Carmen were assigned the maintenance and repair of motor scooter vehicles. In part Rule 43 provides:

Work classification rules typically define the scope of a craft's jurisdiction in terms of the skilled functions performed and the equipment on which these functions are performed. For work to fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of a craft., it must be included in the expressly described functions and equipment allocated to the craft. Under Rule 43 the skilled functions are "laying out, fitting., adjusting shaping, boring, slotting, milling and grading of metals," while the equipment category is "engines (operated by steam or other power)."

 The gasoline powered motor scooters involved in this case satisfy the equipment category test. The term "engine" connotes "any machine by which physical ewer is applied to produce a physical effect." See Webster's New Collegiate Die-

The claimant, however, has not introduced any evidence to show that the work claimed in this case satisfies the functions test. No evidence was submitted to show that "laying out.. fitting, adjusting, shaping, boring., slotting, milling and grinding of metals" was performed on these gasoline engines. The mere assertion that machinists axe entitled to all "maintainance and repair" is not supported by the terms and conditions of Rule 43. This claim., therefore,, must be denied. See Second Division Awards 1110, 2544, 3170, 3387, 4259 for similar circumstances., but different rationale.

        Claim denied in accordance with findings.


                                    NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD By Order of Second Division


Attest: ~~J
 Executive Secretary

 C ted at Chicago, Illinois this 7th day of July, 1972.
        DISSENT TO AWARD NO. 6335, DOCKET NO. 6158


The referee in Award No. 6335, Docket No. 6158, along with the majority in this instant award, caused gross violence to the Machinist Classification of Work Rule No. 43 when they made such absurd interpretation of the rule by stating:

          "The claimant, however, has not introduced any evidence to show that the *ork claimed in this case satisfies the functions test. No evidence was submitted to show that 'laying out, fitting, adjusting, shaping, boring, slotting, milling and grinding of metals' was performed on these gasoline engines. The mere assertion that machinists are entitled to all 'maintenance and repair' is not supported by the terms and conditions of Rule 43. * * *"


Rule 43 is clear and reads as follows:

          "Machinists' work shall consist of laying out, fitting, adjusting, shaping, boring, slotting,-milling, and grinding of metals used in building, assembling, maintaining, dismantling, and installing locomotives and engines (operated by steam or other power), pumps, cranes, hoists, elevators, scale work (when brought to the shop), pneumatic and hydraulic tools and machinery, shafting and other shop machinery; ratchet and other skilled drilling and reaming; tool and die making, tool grinding and machine grading, axle truing, axle, wheel, and tire turning * * *."

                        (Emphasis added)

        DISSENT TO AWARD NO. 6335, DOCKET NO. 6158 Page2


We believe the referee, for reasons of his own, was grasping vainly for an excuse to deny this case irrespective of common sense, knowledge of the railroad industry, and to say the very least, is lacking in proper grammatical construction when placing in historical railroad jargon "internal combustion engine" whether it be diesel, gasoline, or powered by other sources of energy, is still an engine within the meaning, intent and purpose of the contract language of this industry.

 This record is replete with substantive evidence such as (R., p. 6), "For the repair and maintenance of these machines a special shop was built (by carrier) and equipped and staffed by Carmen." This is admitted by the parties that gasoline engines are being repaired. Certainly common sense will show that the dismantling, assembling and maintenance of gasoline engines fall within the historical intent of this particular rule. The referee has accomplished nothing other here than to add further chaos to the industry.

      We dissent.


Robert E. Stenzinge

 D. S.. Anders

 E. J. Haesaert

        I


W.
            17


    O. earn


Ile
 E . . .t~',J McDermott

    lk