Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROfvD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No.
71SECOPaLt A)TVIS;IQN
Docket No.
6855-T
2-MP-EW-'76
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee David P. Twomey when award was rendered.
( System Federation No. 2, Railway Employes'
( Department, A. F. of L. - C. I. 0.
Parties to Dispute: ( (Elc=:-,trical Workers)
(
( Missouri Pacific Railroad Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company violated the current
agreement when they assigned a Signal Maintainer to perform work
within the scope of the Electrical Craft.
2. That accordingly, the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company be ordered
to compensate Telephone Maintainer J. J. Hoggard in the amount of
four hours
W)
at the punitive rate for Monday, July 30, 1973.
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 ox employes involved in this
dispute-axe 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.
On Monday, July 30,
1973,
the Carrier assigned Signal Maintainer J. D.
Boshell to find and correct "line" trouble in the area of DeSoto, Missouri.
The Signal Maintainer walked the communication pole line in and near DeSoto
and did not find any trouble in the pole line. However, he did find that
the trouble was caused by broken wires (telephone drops) to the phone in
the Section Foreman's office at DeSoto (Exhibit K, 0. B. sayers' letter of
May
8, 197+)·
The Signal
maintainer spliced
the wires and corrected the
problem.
The Organization contends that the repair work done by the Signal
Maintainer was work exclusively reserved to their craft by Rule 107(a) of ,
the Agreement of the parties. We agree. Rule 107(a) states in part:
Form 1
Page 2
Award No,
n
Docket No.
6855-T
2-MP-EW-'76
"Electricians' work ... shall. Jinclude electrical wiring,
maintaining, xepa~lring ... telephone equipment on the
Western and Southern Districts only ...."
In the instant case the, Signal Maintainer was properly called out to
correct "line" trouble; however
s~=2
found the fault was not in the line but
in the telephone drop, and proceeded to make the necessary repairs. The
Carrier contends (Carrier's Submission p. 8) that it "is bordering on
absurdity to expect the Carrier to tell the signal maintainer to ignore the
trouble and send a telephone maintainer 123 miles to perform
15
or 20
minutes work". This argument made a deep impression on the Board, however,
we are without authority to sanction the transfer of work, exclusively
contracted to one craft, to another craft, even where the evidence shows
the proper contractual assignment would be impractical or inefficient.
The Carrier violated the Agreement and we shall sustain the claim for
four hours at the straight time rate. The fact that the Claimant Telephone
Maintainer, is a monthly rated employee, and is not paid fox overtime on the:
first five days of the week is
no
defense for the Carrier. If no damages
were required in the situation of a contract violation involving the work of
a monthly rated employee, this Board would be setting up a situation which
would allow the Carrier, at its whim, to avoid its contractual obligations.
A W A R D
Claim sustained as per Findings.
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
By
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
r
By Order of Second Division
o arie Brasch - A inistrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 23rd day of July,
1976.