Ii'arm 1 1VATTOPTAL '?AI LROAD ADJU~Tl,E,171P BOARD Award No. 7361
 5ECOW DIVISION Docket No. 7207-T
 2-TRRAofStL-EW-' 77



Parties to Dis-

( Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis -spute: Claim of Employes:












fIr'ulL1g~S:

 The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon tile whole record and a,11 the evidence, finds that:

 The carrier cr carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor F_ct as appro~aed dune 21, 1_x.:51+.

 This Tivisian of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction aver the dispute involved i.ere:Ln.


installation of new flood li ht;. t allaat.^ and ether related equipment on
 two nincuy-:foot floodlight towers e,t its Madison Yard. The work eras assigned
 to four !'a::Ct:C'7_C:L'dYJ.~"., r'P.pY'eSi'nfi.;e.!by the patitioning organization, and was
 under the supervision of L,lcot:ici"n -ox'4mr:.n "o~.~r~ake, a member of the
 American Railay Suu_m:V:iso~=,a. Association. Ycreaua.tk Slsocxnake and t:rxe -`'au,,
 Electricians ~-~ y ~ _ -`~ t h._. ' ~ ads ~'oL1 Yard. site at approximately 8: 30 A
At "svau .1Jpr0::1.n-atey 1G:25 I^ '"t'='1 r'Ot1f7_ed that _.~:C2"G was
riood for an Electrici-a.n at else Carrier's Union Station; and at 10: 0 the
 Foreman sent Faecr xic:Lan Co<dri.cyW? perform this Work. l~1r . Goodrich
 J.

 low
 Form 1 Award No. 7361
 Page 2 Docket 1`?0. '7207-T

returned to the Madison Yard project at 3:00 P.M. During the period of time Mr. Goodrich was array, two Electricians were working "High", and o~.:e Electrician, Mr. Lee, was left on the ground to hoist weighty fixtures and materials to them. The Carrier st~.tes in its letter of March 2_7, 1975:

        " . . . Mr . Shoema,ke had to continually correct 242r· . Lee's

        action in ra:i.sing the li, vts. It was necessary in the

        interest of safety to the men and ecIuipn?ent for Mr.

        SHoemake to assist and only to that extent."


The Statement of the three Electricians .present, date d October 24, 1975 states:

        "After Electrician Gnodrs ch was reassigned he (Foreman Shoemake) assisted Electrician Leo in pl.rllirig floodlight fixtures up to the floodlight tower to Electricians Roberts and Bryan."


Pursuant to Section 3 First (i) of the Railway Labor Act a Third Party notice was liven to the r2mr~icarz i?~.ilwa;y Supervisors Association concerning the instant claim. '-,he Assoc:i.ati.on chose rot to appear ox parti;:ipate in the dispute.

 Tae Organization contends that Foreman Shoez:aake assi.-ned himself to replace a mechanic and to per i'oz::z electrical i,or'c belongi ng to the B & B Electricians under the Agreer,?ent; and that B 8, . B F lc.ctrica.an C. F. Hofer, the Cl.ai:narii,, should. be ;paid 1'or the time: in question, 1+ 1/2 hours, at the time and one-half rate.

    The Carrier contends that D~a1e 27 spec p i i.~ally allows foreman to erf'orm

work in the exercise as their dut ies. The Carrier contends that the
 hoisting fUrACt10n in question, ,-ras a. one man job, but that- Electrician I!ee
 was physically unable '(,o pert'or-in : the s:ini,nl a tl:~.wctio~:z i n a safe and efficient
 manner. The Carrier contends they. noistvng fixtures is not work exclusively
 reserved to Electricians. The C2rr~7.e_r further contends that the Oryanizaticn
 has the burden of. proving that the ;~rork in question was not foremen's work.

 Contrary to the Carrier's con-;,ention that heisting fixtures or lights is not exclusively Elect rician:;' work. ire fir,-` that such z^rork is an integral part of the installation and wiring of electrical lighting fixtures and is exclusivel;~ reserved to the raecto:i.cians` Craft under Rule 86.

    Rule 27 provides in part that acne but nechan;l.cs or apprentices shall

do mechanics work. This 'rule further provides that the rule does not
 prohibit foremen frail herf'orzning work in the exercise of their duties. The
 Carrier contends that the Organiz::VtJ_cn has riot carried its burden of proof
 to show that the work ~ ~~ question eras no t foreman's s work. '.^7e find -that the
 Carrier, not the Organization la: the burden of proof in the natter of an
 affixanatW a defense; we f-_nd tl=at tire Carrier has not submitted any .proba:tive
 evidence of either rule or practice that the i;~o;ck in question is foremen's
                                                  :

J
mor
 form 1 Page 3

 Award No. 7361
 Docket No. 7207-T
 2-TR..RAofStL-EW-'77

 work. It rmast be remembered that the hoisting work took ,place over a four
 and a half hoax period and the foreman continuously assisted in the hoistinq
 operation. The assir;nriont started out as a four ,person assignment on the
 25th and ended up as a lour person assign:ren't after 3:00 i'.T4. The record
 indicates, including, tire continuous part:ici_pati on of the fore-man in the
 hoisting operation, that the Forera,a.n was not supervising, instructing ox
 demonstrating, but rather that he was r~e_rforznirg meclian:ic's work. Argument
 that an employee eras not physically able to do the work of his craft,
 regardless of proof or lack ~ of proof on the matter, cannot justify a foreman.,
 in a non-emergency situation over a four and a half roux period, performing
 mechanic's work.

 We shall sustain the claim. Honrever, the portion of the claim requesting interest is denied as per a long line of Awards of this Board.

 Claim sustained as per Findings.

 Attest; ~,yecutive Secretary
 National ~,ailroad .Adjust:uent Roard

NaTIO~TAL RAILROAI. ~ ADJCiSmIvENT BOARD

By Order of Second Division


    -: ,G,._._ _..~.__.P.._._...-__._.. ~_..: _~_~..~...-~ r_ __ . fro ~ea?ar`ie _srasc,r -^~',cilnini,_,6 z~a~tive tissistaWi.


    Dated a`E Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of September, 177.

J-

 '"W