Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No.
6571
SECOND DIVISION Docket No.
6423
2-L8r,N-SM-' 73
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Nicholas H. Zumas wheci award was rendered.
( Sheet Metal Workers' International Association
(
parties to Dispute:
( Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That the Carrier violated the current agreement, particularly Rule
87,
at Louisville, Kentucky, when they improperly assigned B.& B. Maintenance
of Way Employes of installing twenty (20) gauge aluminum corrugated
metal to South Louisville Shop building from February
25, 1971
through
March 5, 1971.
2. That accordingly the Carrier be ordered to additionally compensate
Sheet Metal Workers T. R. Jackson, E. Berry, George Owen, P. E. Abner,,
1-1. W. Hunter, G. E. Scolfres, J. A. Houglaad, E. R. Callaway, M. A.
Cholf and R. T. Stewart one hundred and sixty two (162) hours, sixteen'
(16) hours each .at the pro rata rate of pay.
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.
Parties
to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.
The Organization contends that Carrier violated the Agreement between the
parties when it assigned Maintenance of Way (B-?:B) employes to appli· corrugated metal
siding to a building at Carrier's South
Louisville .Shops.
In support of its assertion, the Organization cites Rule
86
and Rule 87 of
the Agreement. The pertinent portions are quoted. herewith:
a
i
i
Form 1 Award No.
6571
1'
Page 2 Docket No. 6423
2-L8-Td-SM-''~
Rule 85''
"Any,man ... who is qualified and capable of doing sheet
metal work ... as applied to buildings, ... whether it be tin,
sheet iron ... shall constitute a sheet metal man."
"Sheet metal workers' work shall consist of tinning,
eoppersmithing and pipefitting in shops, yards, buildings,
including general office buildings, and on passenger coaches
and engines of all kinds; the building, erecting, assembling,
installing, dismantling and maintaining parts made of sheet
copper, brass, tin, zinc, white metal., lead, black, planished,.
pickled and galvanized iron of 10 gauge and lighter, ... and all
other work generally reccgnized.as sheet metal workers' work."
Carrier's position may be summarized as follows:
1. The work involved was properly performed by the Maintenance of Way
employes under Rule 41 of their Agreement. .
2. It has been the practice of Carrier to assign such work to Maintenance
of 'play employes for almost 30 years.
3.
There was an express agreement between all the parties dated February
14,x"
1944
(known as Memorandum of Understanding No.
3)
in which the Sheetmetal Workers
granted the Maintenance of Way employes the right to construct and maintain buildings.
4.
That the Organization has not met its burden of overcoming the assertions
and allegations of the Maintenance of Way e-nployes.!/
The Organization strongly relies on Awards 1359 and 2372 of this Division
that held that the language contained in identical classification rules gave the
Sheetmetal Workers the right to work similar to that involved in this dispute,
despite years of contrary practice. It is unnecessary to pass on the correctness
of those awards, as they might apply to this dispute, since by agreement between the
Sheetmetal Workers and the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes expressly
agreed that on this property the FIB employes had the right to construct and
maintain buildings. The Agreement (memorandum of understanding No.
3)
provides
in part:
"At all other points, except as enumerated above, the work
will be performed by the Maintenance of Way Employes, and in
addition the ---
Construction and maintenance of buildings, ..."
Proper third party notice was given in accordance with T.C.E.U. v. Union Pacif~
i
385 U.S. 157 (1966);
and the Maintenance of Way employes filed a submission that
is part of the record herein, contending that the work. involved exclusively belonged ii
to them.
Form 1 Award No.
6571
Page 3 Docket No.
6423
2 -L~,N-SM-'
73
Under the particular circumstances surrounding this dispute, the Board is
compelled, to deny the claim.
A
W
A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest: Executive Secretary
National
Railroad Adjustment Board
Rosemarie Brasch - Administrative
Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 14th day of September,
1973.
i
~i
i