Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT Bi_.ARD
Award No. 7200
SECOND DIVISION Docket
No.
7025-T
2-C&NW-MA-'76
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Herbert L. Marx, Jr. when award was rendered.
( International Association of Machinists
( and Aerospace Workers
Parties to Dispute:
(
( Chicago & North Western Transportation Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That under the current Agreement, the Chicago and North Western
Transportation Company, hereinafter referred to as the Carrier,
erroneously assigned two Carmen, eight
(8)
hours each, on
April
. 17, 18, 19
and 22,
1974,
to perform Machinist work consisting of
laying-out, fabricating, assembling, installing and welding a
roller conveyor in the Wheel Reclamation Shop at Clinton, Iowa,
which is in violation of Rule ,#62 of the July 1, 1921, Agreement,
as amended.
2. That, accordingly, Carrier be ordered to compensate Mach.inistst
Michael Edwards, LeRoy Steines, Gerhardt Rickertsen, 1.;~avd E.
Bender, Robert K. Nolan, Duane R. Rechman, Tom Letschy and (ary
rt.
Klimstra, hereinafter referred to as the Claimants, in
the
amount
of eight
(8)
hours each, at the rate and one-half Machiruist:~'
rate of pay, account Carrier depriving the Claimants their
contractual right to perform the disputed work covered by the
Machinists' classification of work rules.
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.
This matter involves the fabrication and assembly of steel stands onto
which a roller conveyor, manufactured elsewhere, was to be bolted, at the
Carrier's Clinton Car Shop. The work was done by employes of the Carmen
craft.
Form 1 Award No. 7200
Page 2 Docket No. 7025-T
2-C&NW-MA-'76
The Organization (Machinists) claim that this work was entirely and
exclusively within its classification of work rules; that there were
Machinists available to do the work; and that the Carrier erred wholly in
assigning the work to Carmen.
As third party to the dispute, the Carmen claim that the work is,
properly within their scope rule, and further: .
".., that said claim is improperly before your Board and should
be dismissed due to the fact that the Machinists have not followed
the required procedures in the handling of disputes and claim
as provided for the agreed to letter of understanding, dated
February 12,
1940..."
Threshold questions in the dispute are whether or not a jurisdictional
dispute exists, and, if so, whether the
1940
letter of understanding must
be followed for resolution of the dispute.
Examination of the record shows that no jurisdictional dispute, in the
common use of the term, exists in this matter. A jurisdictional dispute
normally deals with the introduction of a new operation or procedure or a
continuing dispute between two crafts where classification of work rules
either do not refer specifically to the work in question or where there is
reasonable grounds to show that two or more rules cover the work involved.
A single instance of assignment of work to one craft, where it is clearly
shown that it belongs to another craft, can hardly be relegated to the
jurisdictional dispute procedure. Rather, such specific and provable
misassignment may surely yield to the regular dispute procedure and/or
resolution by this Board. To hold otherwise would mean that a Carrier could
assign any work at any time to any craft without being held responsible for
damages of such error. As examples, see Awards Nos. 4547 (Williams),
4725 (Johnson), 5726 (Dorsey) and 6762 (Eischen).
As will be shown below, this Board finds that the fabrication and
assembly of stands for a roller conveyor is such a single, isolated instance.
Thus, this Board need not examine whether or not the
1940
letter
of
understanding is applicable. It is noted, however, that Award No.
6958
(Lieberman) finds the
1940
letter of understanding has been inapplicable
since
1953.
As to the merits of the issue, this Board finds the resolution within
the classification of work rules of the two crafts. Rule No. 62 reads as
follows:
Form 1
Page
3
Award No. 7200
Docket No.
7025-T
2-C&Nw-Ma-'
76
Machinists' work shall consist of laying out, fitt _ir;~;, _adjusting, shaping, boring, slotting, milling, and grinding of
.Metal..,
in building, assembling, maintaining, dismantling, and installing
locomotives and engines (operated by steam or other power),
gamp:;
cranes, hoists, elevators, pneumatic and hydraulic
tools
and
machinery; scale building, shafting and other shop machinery,
rachet and other skilled drilling and reaming; tool and die
making, tool grinding and machine grinding, axle truing, axle,
wheel and tire turning and boring; engine inspecting; air equipment, lubricator and injector work; removing, replacing, grinding,
bolting, and breaking of all joints on super-heaters, oxy--acetylene, thermit and electric welding on work generally recognized
as Machinists' work; the operation of all machines used in such
work, including dril=':. presses and bolt threaders using a facing,
boring ox turning head or milling apparatus, and all other work
generally recognized as machinists' work." Underscoring added.
Rule No. 124 reads as follows:
"Carmen's work shall consist of pattern-making, flask making,
cabinet work, passenger car work, surfacing, priming, varnishing, lettering, decorating passenger cars and locomotive:,:;
upholstering, building, repairing, removing and applying
locomotive cabs, pilots, pilot beams, running boards, fcc;;;
headlight boards; wood fender frames; wood machine operas-'::~;
buffing, millwright work and all other work of the same class
generally recognized as carmen's work.
Other carmen's work shall consist of bench carpenter work, pass-
;engex car platform work in connection with building and repairing
motor lever and hand cars, station trucks and other similar
equipment when at shops and all other carpenter work in shops
and yards; building and repairing way car steps, repairing
stationary car equipment and similar boxes; burning off or sandblasting paint; spraying or painting underframes, roofs, floors,
trucks, iron work, battery boxes and other equipment on passenger
cars; locomotive painting, freight and way car painting and
stencilling; laying out and cutting stencils; painting and
stencilling tool houses, gateman towers and similar building,
roadway signs, station trucks, motor cars and other similar
equipment when at shops; paint removing with sandpaper or torch
and all other work generally recognized as painters' work.
Freight and passenger car inspecting, air hose coupling in train
yards and terminals; mounting, dismounting and repairing steam,
air and water hose; operating punches and shears during shaping
and forming, hand forges and heating torches in connection with
carmen's work; repairing freight cars and tender trucks; pipe
work in connection with air brake equipment on freight cars;
applying prepared metal roofing; insulating refrigerator car
doors and hatch plus wrecking derrick engineers; oxy-acetylene,
thermit and electric welding on work generally recognized as
carmen's work and all other work of the same class generally
recognized as carmen's work."
Form 1
Page 4
Award No. 7200
Docket No. 7025-T
2-C&Nw-MA-'
76
The work involved included fabricating, assembling, installing (including
welding) stands for shop machinery. Are the stands themselves "machinery"?
This Board finds they are an integral part of the roller conveyor, without
which it obviously could not operate. The Carrier itself states
in
its
submission:
"The Carrier must of necessity, however, admit that a study of
the machinists' classification of work rules might conceivably
result in the conclusion that the fabrication and assembly of
stands such as are here involved came under the machinists'
classification of work rules."
As to the Carmen's classification of work rules, they are devoid of
reference to this type of work, except as to reference to welding. However,
such welding is limited to "work generally recognized as carmen's work".
This Board finds the Carrier misassigned the work and thus sustains
Claim No. 1.
Under Claim No. 2, the Organization seeks eight hours' pay at rate and,
a half for eight named employees. When the question was raised by the
Carrier as to the ability of the claimants to perform welding work, tie
Organization provided, on the property, the names of two additional
Machinists acknowledged to be qualified in welding.
This Board cannot assume that, if the Carrier load assigned the work
to Machinists, the work would have been performed on overtime. The remedy
therefore shall be to provide eight hours straight-time pay for eight days,
Such pay shall be paid to Machinists as determined on the property between the
Carrier and the Organization, taking into account that some of the work was
welding (the proportion of welding to the total work performed being in
dispute). Thus, some portion of the eight days' pay is to go to Machinistp
recognized as qualified welders, even if they were not among the original
listed claimants.
A W A R D
Claim No. 1 is sustained.
Claim No. 2 is sustained as per Findings.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
By _
Risemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this l4-th day of December,
1976.