l

(Advance copy. The usual printed copies will be sent later.)

Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSIMENT BOARD Award No. 6469
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 6349
2-BN-EW-173
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in.
addition Referee John J. McGovern when award was rendered.

( System Federation No. 7, Railway Employes'

Department, A. F. of L. C. I. 0.

Parrt~us to Disgate: (Electrical Workers)

( Burlington Northern, Inc.

Dis u~te: Claim of Employes:

1. That in violation of the current agreement, the Carrier improperly

used employees of the Union Pacific Railroad to install two (2)

antennaes, associated wave guides, wiring, etc. for a Burlington

Northern microwave repeater at Rocky Point, Oregon. Also, for

the alighment of the antennae at Rocky Point, Oregon to establish

paths (channels) between Rocky Point, Oregon and the repeater station

at Green Mountain, Washington and the American Bank Terminal Station

a t Portland, Oregon. .

2. That accordingly Carrier be ordered to compensate Communication CrewtFOreman G. L. Bienusa, Communications Crew Linemen C. A. Perry, A. R. Lane, H. Ivanov, J. M. Cournea, W. J. Krausch, Communication Crew Groundman D. R. Horse and Communication Maintainer T. M. Sweet in an amount of hours at pro rata and overtime rate equal to the hours of labor used by the Union Pacific Crew in performing the aforementioned communication work.

Findings:

The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the rah,*le 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.

Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.

The Organization has submitted the instant claim on behalf of the employees for work done by employees of another Carrier. The determinative factor in this case f is the question of ownership of the property where the work in question was performed.

From a review of the factual situation and attendant evidence presented in this docket, we are convinced that the property in question was owned by the Union Pacific and not by the Burlington Northern. Hence, arty work involved would properly
Form l Award No. 646° I
Paf;e 2 Docket No. 63,
2 BN EW '?3

be within the province of the Collective Bargaining Agreement between Union
Pacific and its employees. The Burlington Northern had no control over the -
property and work done was outside the scope and purview of their Agreement with
the Petitioner. We will deny the claim.

A W A R D

Claim denied.

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJLTTT1INT BOARD By Order of Second Division

Attest:

~G~.~.i,

Executive Secretary

Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 3;;t1: day of' April, 1';:;.

i