Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUST~IT BOARD Award No.
7373
SECOND DIVISION Docket No.
7281-T
2-SCL-SM-'77
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Abraham Weiss when award was rendered.
( Sheet Metal Workers` International
( Association
Parties to Dispute:
( Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. January
28, 1975
Foreman R. L. Ham assigned Machinist L. C.
Carpenter to install water pipe on diesel locomotive unit
1703.
2.
That the Carrier be ordered to compensate Sheet Metal Worker
W. L. Carswell for two (2) hours and forty (40) minutes at time
and one-half rate of pay.
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,
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.
The instant claim arose on January
28, 1975
at Uceta Shop (Tampa,
Florida) when Carrier assigned to a machinist the installation of water pip:
on a diesel locomotive.
Seaboard Railroad represents the merger on July 1,
1967
of the former
Atlantic Cost Line and Seaboard Air Line :Railroads. The Uceta Shop was
a facility of the for-:er Atlantic Coast Line.
The Sheet Metal irIorkers maintain that the Carrier's work assignment
violates Rule
85,
the Sheet h.Fetal Workers' Classification of Work Rule, and
Rule 26, reserving mechanics' work to mechanics or apprentices "as per
special rules of each craft'". The Organization contends that its members
have histori.cal:Ly performed such work and that the Machinists' Classification
of Work Rule manes no reference to the removal of water pipes or water lines.
Petitioner cites that the Shop Superintendent denied a claim by the
Machinists for this work on the ground that the Sheet 'Yetal Workers had
Form 1 Award No. 7373
Page 2 Docket No. 7281-T
2-SCL-SM-'77
historically done the work in question. The Superintendent's decision was
reversed, and the work assigned to Machinists by the Assistant Vice
President of Equipment on the ground that the work was, through error,
performed by Sheet Metal Workers.
The Machinists have also filed an ex parte submission claiming that
although the Sheet Metal Workers did the work at issue on the Seaboard,
members of the machinists' craft have performed such work on the Atlantic
Coast Nine RR. The current dispute arose at the Uceta Shop, a facility of
the Atlantic Coast Line.
The assignment of jurisdiction over the disputed work to the Sheet
Metal Workers on the Seaboard Air Line RR stems from a jurisdictional award
(No. 674) signed by both Oranizations in 195-. That Award provides that,
on the Seaboard, " rer.loving and applying all water pipes i n connection with
the cooling system on Diesel engines is sheet metal workers' work," and that
the understanding was "to apply only or. this railroad and not to be
considered or used as a precedent affecting any other railroad."
Following the merger of the two lines on July 1, 1957, the parties
signed a Fetter of Understanding on December 20, 1967 :pertaining to assignment of work acrd practices that existed prior to July 1, 1957. Paragraph 2
thereof provides:
"When the consolidated agreement becomes effective,
it is therefore agreed that where conflicts exist
regarding specific items of work in the classification
of work r'ples of the new agreement, L"a- n°w working
agreement for the merged Companv7 no changes in the
practices of performing such work that were in
conflict prior to the merger will be made by the Company
until such conflicts or jurisdictional disputes are
' settled."
Paragraph 4 provides, in part:
"The organizations will present to management their
proposals for settlement of such conflicts or disputes,
and the management will accept any reasonable proposal ...."
In brief, the December 20, 1967 Letter of Understanding requires the
carrier to continue work practices on the former properties until conflicts
in work practices are resolved between the crafts and negotiated with the
Carrier to be applied.
Efforts to resolve the differences between the two Organizations have
proved unsuccessful.
Form 1 Award No.
7373
Page
3
Docket No.
7281-T
2-SCL-SM-`77
On September
25, 1957,
the question of jurisdiction over the disputed
work was submitted by the General Chairman of both Organizations on the
Atlantic Coast Line to their respective International Presidents for
"consideration and disposition", because they could not settle the matter.
The joint submission included as a Statement of Fact: "Work is now performed
by machinists." No action was apparently taken by the repsective International
Organizations on this joint submission.
Following the filing early in
1975
of the claim before us, the Sheet
Metal Workers' General. Chairman an lNovember 24,
1975,
requested the Machinists'
General Chairman to join in requesting the Carrier to apply Award No.
674,
dated July
19, 195.,
"uniformly throughout the Seaboard Coast Line system."
On July 20,
1976,
the Machinists' General Chairman offered to join the
Sheet Metal Workers in submitting the unresolved dispute on the former ACL
and Award
674
to their International Organizations to resolve the issue as
to which craft would perform the work on a systemwide basis.
On October 20,
1975,
the Sheet lvietal Workers served a Section
6
notice
on the Seaboard Coast Line RR to remove themselves from the provisions of
the December 20,
1967
Letter of Understanding.
The Carrier and the Sheet Metal workers settled the Section
6
notice
by a Letter of Agreement dated May 12,
1977,
which provides, in part, as
follows:
"In event conflicts or disputes covered by the
December 20,
167
Letter of Understanding cannot
be satisfactorily resolved in accordance with the
provisions of the December 20,
1967
Letter of
Understanding, you may progress the involved
grievances to the Second Division, wTRaB, a Public
Law Board or a Special Board of Adjustment on the
basis of merit without reference to the December 20,
1967
Letter of Understanding being used against you
provided you have in good faith complied with all
provisions thereof, including submitting your
proposal for resolving the dispute or conflict.
It is understood this Letter of Understanding in no
way alters the provisions of the December 20,
1967
Letter of Understanding as it applies to the Sheet
Metal Workers international Association or any other
party signatory thereto."
Form 1 Award No.
7373
Page
4
Docket No.
7281-T
2-SCL-SM-`77
The situation thus resolves itself to the Sheet Metal Workers performing
the work on the former Seaboard (to which Award
674
applied), with the
Machinist doing the work on the former Atlantic Coast Line. As indicated
above, the Uceta Shop, where the instant claim was filed, was part of the
ACL RR. Petitioner's rebuttal to the IAM submission lists shops in which
the Sheet Metal Workers do the work; other shops in which the disputed work
is done by the Machinists, and one shop (Waycross, Georgia) where both crafts
have performed the work.
It is clear that a jurisdictional dispute eixsts between these two
crafts. Beth crafts claim to have performed the disputed work in the past
and that the work is reserved to their respective crafts by the Classification
of Work Rules. The joint submissions to their respective international
Presidents, or proffers to re-submit such joint submissions; requests by
one of the Organizations to the other to request the Carrier to apply Award
674
on a systemwide basi s--farnish ample evidence of a jurisdictional
conflict which is still unresolved. The Petitioner's submission also indicates
the lack of uniform practice on the Carrier with respect to the disputed
work; at one location cited, both crafts have performed the work. Both
crafts filed ex parte submissions in support of their respective c3l_aims.
The May 12 , 7
_977
Letter of Agreement between the Sheet Metal Workers
and the Carrier cited above cannot be mad` retroactive to this instant
case, which was filed early in
1575.
The
1967
better of Understanding between Petitioner and Machinists
requires the Carrier to maintain the status quo as to work assigrL-L'nts
and practices in effect prior to July 1,
1967,
the date of the merger, until
the jurisdictional dispute is settled between the contending Organizations.
According to this Understanding, the Carrier may not reassign the work,
absent agreement between the tyro Organizations. The transfer of work from
one craft to another can only take place after negotiations and agreement,
not only between the two cor~petirag Organizations, but also between them
and the Carrier.
No such agreement has been reached in this case.
The Letter of Understanding was valid and operative at the time the
claim was filed. The better contains no provision which allows a signatory
party to by-pass its requi renents for mutual agreement and accomsr_odation
before work assignments (and jurisdiction) can be changed. No exceptions
are provided in the event, as in this case, the parties fail to reach
agreement. This Board has no authority to add to or to alter the Understanding reached between the contending parties. That is the province of
the parties.
Form 1
Page 5
Award No. 7373
Docket No. 7281-T
2-SCL-SM-'77
Both the petitioner (Sheet Metal Workers) and the Machinists claim the
right to perform the work which is the subject of the claim .presented to
this Board. A jurisdictional dispute exists between the two Organizations,
which is unresolved. The Letter of Understanding provides for the orderly
settlement of jurisdictional disputes. The parties are duty bound to comply
with the procedures provided therein.
Under the circumstances, and in view of the clear procedural prescriptions contained within the Letter of Understanding, this Board has no
jurisdiction to render a decision on the merits of the claim. Based an the
foregoing we will decline to accept jurisdiction over this dispute.
A W A R D
Claim dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUST~.D-~'D3T BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
°°it6demarie Brascn - A(:tninistrative tjss istant
Dated all/t Chicago, Illinois, this l4th day of October, 1977