Parties to Dispute:


                        (

                        ( Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company


          Dispute: Claim of Employes:


                1. That the Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company viola ted the controlling Agreement, particularly Rule 87, on July 22, 23, 1971, when they improperly assigned Electricians the duty of disconnecting and connecting freon copper pipes from condensor coil to air conditioner unit, Main Office Building, South Louisville Shops, Louisville, Kentucky.


2. That accordingly the Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company
 be ordered to compensate Sheet Metal Workers W. T. Thompson,
 0. B. Pearson,, W. S. Dobson and W. H. Young for eight (8)
 a
      ,, hours each at the pro rata rate of pay for such violation.


          Findings:

i
          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 were given due notice of hearing thereon.


          Carrier in its submission states that "the freon gas line work was necessary to put the unit (air conditioning) in service." This brings the work involved within the purview of the application of Classification of Work Rule 87 of the Controlling Agreement . This was dealt with at length in Award 677+ and the Findings there are applicable hereto.


    _,

          Form 1 Award No. 6775

          Page 2 Docket No. 6600 ~, :;

          2-L&N-SM-' 74


                            A W A R D


            Part 1 of Claim sustained.


            Part 2 of Claim remanded in accordance with the Findings of Award 677+ relative thereto.


                              NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                              By Order of Second Division


          Attest: Executive Secretary

          National Railroad Adjustment Board


          By

          Rfsemarie Brasch - A native Assistant


          Dated /at Chicago, Illinois, this 21st day of October, 1g74.


i ._~
 CARRIER MEMBERS' DISSENT TO AWARDS ;a"74, n7'S, .:~; : n. 6 % ; 7, h':

                  (Referee Shapiro)


            · Y

              ~_Yj r..31'; ~'


Carrier Members respectfully submit that these awards are invalid on jurisdictional grounds.

 The author of these awards refuses to recognize and enforce clear agreement provisions which all parties to this dispute frankly concede are binding upon them and those provisions establish the usual manner for the handling of such claim,. The provisions read:

 ". . . no . . representative of organizations signatory hereto, will individually request management to take work from one craft and eive it to another craft . . .

 ". . , we will find a way to reach an agreement and settle any disRutPs that may arise between any two crafts signatory hereto, involving jurisdiction of work, and when such dispute has thus bPpn settled, then request will be ,presented to management for conferences to ne_otiate the acceptance by management of the settlement thus made." (Underlining added.)

 We do not believe the parties could have found language that would have more --Alearly expressed an agreement absolutely prohibiting any of the signatory organiza-

 ~ns from individually presenting to Carrier a claim involving jurisdiction of work
 ~d another signatory organization. Furthermore, the record leaves no room whatever to doubt the fact that these clear provisions are an agreement that binds all of the parties to the instant dispute. Carrier and the Electricians both cite and rely on them and the petitioning Sheet Metal Workers concede their existence, never question their complete validity, never claim they have been complied with, but attempt to avoid their effect in these particular cases by advancing the incredible argument that these cases do not come under said agreement provisions because the piping work involved is allegedly reserved to Sheet Metal Workers by their Classification of Work Rule. The complete answer to this argument is that the parties had before them the Classification of Work Rules when they agreed to said provisions, yet they saw fit to establish no exception to their unconditional commitment.

 These awards significantly do not adopt this absurd argument of the Sheet Metal Workers. Rather, the author contrived objections of his own to the crystal clear agreement, referring to the obligation of the parties thereunder as an "alleged contractual obligation", citing the irrelevant fact that Carrier was not a party to the "Miami Agreement" and concluding that "Appendix 'A' makes no provision for circumstances where an attempt by the Organizations to resolve an alleged jurisdictional dispute fails." (Underlining added.)

 In view of the confusion that is so abundantly apparent in these awards, we wonder what is meant by this reference to an "alleged jurisdictional dispute"; therefore, we will avoid that terminology and speak in the clear, unambiguous and
 ''-solute teens of the agreement provisions that are controlling. Those provisions
 / that no signatory organization "will individually request management to take cork -away from another craft" and that the signatory organizations "will find a way, to reach an agreement and settle any dispute that may arise between any two crafts signatory hereto, involving the jurisdiction of work, and when such dispute has thus been
 Dissent to Awards rs7'4, 6'7, o77b. c177^, 6778

 Page 2

 " settled, then request will be presented to man_a~ement . . ." Certainly, these claims came under the ban of those provisions, and the author of these awards has simply refused to recognize said provisions and dive them their intended effect.

 As the Electricians point out in their third party submission, Section 3 Firs, of the Railway Labor Act provides that disputes cannot be brought to this Board until they have been handled on the property in the usual manner; and the usual manner for handlinga jurisdictional dispute of the type involved in these claims makes it mandatory that agreement be reached by the two organizations claiming the work before any claim can be submitted to Carrier and further processed.

 This Board has consistently and without exception recognized that a rule of procedure such as that quoted above rust be complied with as a condition precedent to properly invoking the jurisdiction of this Board. In Award 2898 which is cited in Award 6774 as authority for assuming jurisdiction in the instant cases, the Board expressly found that: "The said dispute was settled under the jurisdictional dispute procedure of February 15, 1940 between the organizations by agreeing that the work belonged to the Sheet Metal Workers." Certainly that award is no authority for assuming jurisdiction in the instant cases where no agreement was reached and it was the petitioning organization that terminated the negotiations of the parties. See Awards 2747 through 2780 (Smith), 2931 through 2936 (Kiernan), 5789, 5793 (Coburn), 6759, 6763, 6765 Eischen).

 The cited Eischen awards were released a few days after release of the proposals in the instant cases and thus represent the latest expression of any Referee concerning the jurisdictional question presented in these cases. It will be observed that the last Eischen award (6765) involved the same Petitioner, the same Carrier, and the same agreement that are involved in these cases. This award correctly concludes:

 'rte have often decided cases of the type presented herein and we car. see no justification for now deviating from that clear precedent. See Awa-rds 2931, 2936, 57$9 and 5793· We ca~!not ignore valid and legrLtl omerati·re agreements entered into in food faith by the parties, notwithstanding subsequent changes in alliances and allegiances. In the instant case, such an agreement contearolates the submission of such disrute to zttea-oted mutual resolution amor_zthe Organizations involved
with conference negotiation with management for acceptance of such inter - Org?nizational settlement.

 ' ^;de find that the instant dispute is referrable properly to the _resolution machinery established by Appendix 4 of the Agreement and is 'orema,turel7,r before our Board for adjudication pursuant to the nrov=~sions of Section 3, First (i) of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, and Circular Rio. 1 of the National Railroad Adjustment Board.

 "Consistent with the foregoing, we are without ;jurisdiction to decide this claim on its merits. Accordingly, it will be dismissed without prejudice.t, (Underlining added.)

 These claims also should have been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because they

 have not been handled in the usual manner.