Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No.
6766
SECOND DIVISION Docket No.
6623
2_nT&w-sM-174
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Dana E. Eischen when award was rendered.
( Sheet Metal Workers' International
( Association
Parties to Dispute:
(
( Norfolk and Western Railway Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That the Carrier improperly assigned other than Sheet Metal
Workers to the erecting, assembling and installing of the
sheet metal Duct work installed in the General Office
Building West First Floor, Roanoke, Virginia.
2.
That accordingly the Carrier be ordered to compensate Sheet
Metal Workers
r.
M. Ch aman and P. E. Roberts in the amount
of
162
hours at the time and one half rate to be equally
divided among them.
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,
193+.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the
dispute involved herein.
Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing
thereon.
In 1972 Carrier undertook a remodeling project of the first floor
of its General Office Building at Roanoke, Virginia. The remodeling
has been described as including the following: "(1) the construction
of several dividing walls, (2) installation of paneling and doors,
(3)
new air condition and heating duct system including fan coil
units and duct heaters,
(4)
lighting fixtures,
(5)
drop ceiling,
(6)
floor tile and carpet, (7) toilet and hand washing facilities,
(8)
thermostats, etc.". The work in question was performed by employees
of Carrier and by outside contractors' forces as follows: Maintenance
of Way forces performed building structure work and installation of
heating and cooling duct work; Sheet Metal Workers performed the above
ground connections and piping for fan-coil units, toilet and wash
basins and drain lines from fan-coil units; Electricians did the
Form 1
Page 2
Award
Docket
6700
6623
2-Iced-SM-'
74
wiring; and the outside contractors performed thermostat work,
furnished lighting and fixtures, laid carpeting and prefabricated the
duct work.
On October
o,
1972, Petitioner filed a claim on behalf of Sheet
Metal Workers :-i. M. Chapman and P. E. Roberts alleging a violation
of classification of work rule
84
by the assignment to other than
Sheet Metal Workers the fabrication, erecting, assembling and installing
of the sheet metal duct work installed in the General Office Building
remodeling project. Carrier declined this claim on December 1,
1972
stating as follows:
"There has been no violation of Rule
84
or any other
rule of the current agreement in this instance. The work
which you cite does not belong exclusively to sheet metal
workers by rule or practice nor is it work of a type
currently performed by sheet metal workers. For many years
duct work has been contracted out or performed by the
Maintenance of Way Department or other crafts."
The positions of the parties have remained initially unchanged
throughout handling on the property, the dispute has not been resolved
and comes to us now for disposition. Since the Brotherhood of
Maintenance of Way Employes has an interest in this matter that
Organization was permitted to file with our Board a submission of its
position with regard thereto.
Sheet Metal Workers, Petitioner herein, asserts that the clear
and unambiguous language of Rule
84
vests in it the exclusive right to
the installation of heat and air conditioning duct work in dispute.
Petitioner readily concedes that over the years such work has
frequently been contracted to outside forces but denies that Maintenance
of Way Employes frequently have performed same. Further, Petitioner
argues~thet irrespective of practice the work belongs to it alone
under the express provisions of Rule
84.
Carrier maintains that the assignment of installing the prefabricated
heating and air conditioning ducts to Maintenance of Way forces is
consistent with a long-standing past practice which predates Rule
84
and which has been followed since the establishment of Rule
84.
Moreover, Carrier asserts without contradiction from petitioner that
such work has been for many years performed by outside contractors
in Carrier's buildings. Finally, Carrier maintains that the language
of Rule
84
itself is not so clear and unambiguous as to vest the duct
work exclusively to the Sheet Metal Workers. Accordingly, Carrier
contends that neither express language nor custom, practice and
tradition support such exclusive claim to the work in dispute.
Form 1
Page
3
Award No.
5766
Docket No.
6623
2-N&W-SM-'
74
The Brotherhood of
Maintenance
of .day Employees states that work
of the type in dispute has traditionally and historically been
performed by BM6~TE craftsmen without objection by any other Organization
since 1921. Accordingly, that Organization asserts that a practice
of over
53
years duration should not be summarily changed or terminated.
Brie ha=re carefully considered the evidence adduced, the pertinent
contract provisions and the positions of each of the parties. In all
of the circumstances herein we conclude and find as follows:
1. The work in dispute did not involve the fabrication of
duct work.by BMW forces. The ducts were purchased prefabricated,
and bolted in place or installed by Maintenance of Way Employes.
2. The language of Rule
84
is not so clear and unambiguous
as to confer of itself alone exclusive jurisdiction of the
installation of air conditioning ducts upon Petitioner.
3.
The record supports the conclusion that such work has
been performed over the years both by outside forces and by
BMWE forces. Accordingly, exclusive jurisdiction of the disputed
work is not vested in petitioner by custom practice and tradition.
4.
Consistent with the foregoing; the work did not exclusively
belong to Claimants and the Carrier's action in the instant case
did not violate Rule
84.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
By _
semarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this26th day of September,
197+.
~ i