Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTr,!ENT,
~QARD.
, Award No.
6809
SECOND DIVISION
`~'''
G `' Docket No.
6586
~,~OU-CM-'
75
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Robert M. O'Brien -rh en award was rendered.
( System Federation No. 21, Railway Employes'
( --Department, A. F. of L. - C. I. 0.
Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)
( Southern Railway Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That the Carrier violated the controlling Agreement when
work belonging to the Carmen's Craft was assigned to the
Craft of Sheet Metal Workers at Coster Shop, Knoxville,
Tennessee on September
25, 1972.
2.
That accordingly, the Carrier be ordered to compensate Carman
L. G. Conner, Coster Shop, Knoxville, Tennessee for five
(5)
hours pay at the straight time rate for September
25,
1972.
Findings-
The i,:
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 were given due notice of hearing thereon.
The.instant claim arose on September
25, 1972
at Coster Shop,
Knoxville, Tennessee when Carrier assigned to Sheet Metal Workers the
work of installing a fabricated sheet of aluminum on the top of a
fork-lift truck. It is the Carmen's contention that members of their
craft have always performed the work of constructing and applying tops
on fork-lift trucks, and that Carrier violated their Agreement when
they assigned this work to Sheet Metal Workers. The Carmen maintain
that this work is reserved to then by Rule 149, their Classification
of Work Rule, and but for a brief period in 1970 when the work was
improperly assigned to Sheet Metal Workers they have performed it at
least for the past
15
years.
Form 1 Award No.
6809
Page 2 Docket No.
6596
2-SOU-CM-'75
The Sheet Metal Workers have also filed an ex parte submission
with this Division claiming that members of their craft have historically
performed the work of applying roll guards and tops made of metal to
fork-lifts. They further contend that the work is reserved to them
by Rule 123, the Classification of Work Rule of their current Agreement
with Carrier.
The protests of representatives of both the Carmen and Sheet
Metal Workers notwithstanding, we believe a jurisdictional dispute
exists between these two crafts at Carrier's Coster Shop and that
said dispute must be disposed of in accordance with the Memorandum
of Understanding (Disposition of Jurisdictional Disputes) agreed to
by the parties on November 23,
1946.
That Memorandum provides that a jurisdictional dispute exists
when and if two or more crafts claim the same work. And while both
crafts deny that their claim involves a jurisdictional dispute their
actions belie their contentions. Both crafts claim they have performed
the disputed work in the past, that the work is reserved to their
respective crafts by the Classification of Work Rules, and, in fact,
both crafts maintain that they are currently performing the work at
Coster Shop. Furthermore, both crafts filed an ex parte submission,
and sent General Chairmen to the Second Division when Hearing was
held on November
6, 1974
wherein both crafts strenuously argued their
right to install tops on fork-lift tracks. It thus becomes readily
apparent that a jurisdictional dispute: does exist in spite of protests
to the contrary.
When this occurs, the Memorandum of Understanding requires
Carrier to maintain the status quo relative to which craft is doing
the work, and it cannot attempt ±o settle the dispute "unless and
until the two Local Chairmen involved or the two General Chairmen of
the crafts involved make an agreement and request that the work be
changed". Wee construe this Understanding as precluding Carrier from
reassigning the disputed work unless and until the competing crafts
reach an accommodation respecting which craft is entitled to the
work. Where is no provision contained in this Understanding that
should the crafts fail to reach agreement then this Board shall
settle the dispute. And we deem it beyond our jurisdiction to add
such a provision to tile Memorandum.
The Carmen and Sheet Metal Workers insist that the intent of the:
Railway Labor Act will be frustrated if we refuse to assume jurisdiction
over the dispute. Conversely, said intent would also be frustrated
if this Board completely disregarded a clearly written, duly negotiated
Agreement entered into by the parties hereto for the orderly settlement
Form 1
Page
3
Award No.
6309
Docket No.
6596
2-SOU-CM-
t75
of jurisdictional disputes. If the parties no longer wish to abide
by the procedure enunciated in the November 23,
1946
Memorandum of
Understanding then it is incumbent upon them to rewrite said Understanding. Until such time, this Board will apply the Memorandum as
written and decline to entertain jurisdiction over the jurisdictional.
dispute.
A W A R D
Claim dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
R,~semarie Brasch - Ndnunistrative Assistant .
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 24th day of January,
1975.