Form 1 NATIOiTAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOAP,D Award No
. 7378
SECOND DIVISION DocKet No.
7305-T
2-1:v&W-MA-
'77
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Abraham Weiss when award was rendered.
( International
Association of Machinists and
( Aerospace Workers
Parties to Diszrate:
(
{ Norfolk and western Railway Company
Dis
-pute: Claim of Einployees:_
1. Carrier violated the controlling Agreement, Rules
31
and SI+, but
not limited thereto, when on the dates of January
6, 1975,
first
L;hif't, 7:00 a.m. to
3:30
p.m., January
'7, 1975,
first shift,
7:00
a._:!. to
3:30
p.m., Jwrn.iary
8, 1975,
first shift,
7:00
a.m.
to : 30 p.m. , January
9, 1975,
first shi
-Ft- , 7
:
00 a.m. to
3: 30
P-m
Jauaary 7_0,
1.975,
first shift,
7:
CO a.m. to
3:30
P.m ., five
(5)
Ca.r.ren, R. I-S.
Rice,
F. W. Robinson, -Jr. , S. R. '~iorrel.l, R. F.
Cra'4·ri°ord and VI. L. Austin, each wor'"ed eight
(8)
hours en the
aforementioned dates, performing :~orii of the I·L^.chini.st Craft for
a total o' two hundred ( % 00 ) hours at the R· ou.rldry.
2. That a.ccordin~l.y, the Idorfol_k and western Rai1i·r~wy Compare be
ordered to additionally co:pen sate Ifachin:ists B. L:. i.fuxxay, H. C.
Wald~ora, Jr.. C. R'. Price, Jr., D. C. Price, D. ?~. King.
T.^7.
C.
Shelton, I. L.
S.L
Jr., C. R. Coll~.ns, J. V. Reich and.
F '.
0.
Hogan vn the amount of twenty ( %C ) hours each at the pro rata
rate of pay.
I ridings:
The Second Division oar the Adjustment Board, upon the -..whole record and.
all the evidence, finds that:
The carrier or carriers arid the ern;lofe o:!' employes involved in this
dispute awe respecti.;~ ,el~r cart°ier and era-ylrn;- ~y ithin the meaning of the
Railway Labor Act as approved aszr_e 21,
193-,
Thi.s Division of the AAc.jtatrnent Board I'las jurisdiction over the disfr: to
involved ieL°ei.n..
Pax°ties to said d.is~nzte waived right of ayopeara.nce at hearing thereon.
The
Organization
asserts that ors the dates of January 6-1C,
1975,
Cax:r.en
were improperly assigned to vhe irxst,al~=_°wtion of a sand hopper, the installation
and aliginent of a :Ia Ba Le device d-irec tly underneath, and the installation:.
of three ::xa'-;e doi·m boxes, wll of v;Inic~= had to be tied in with installinr,
some 200 feet of conveyors in the Fond ^5- at the Carrier's Roanoke Shops.
Form l Award
No.
7378
Page 2 Docket No.
7305-T
2-N&w-Ma-'
77
A more detailed statement of the work involved was submitted lay the
Carrier:
"The fixtures referenced were a Hopper-Mixture and Roller Loop
Conveyor°. The Hopper-Mixer is a totally purchased ite:-;i which
was liflued anal set in place by an overhead crane. A docrging
plate
3/8" x 6" x 6"
metal was cut out by torch, then welded
to each of four
(4)
hopper legs; one dogging plate
3/8" x
12"
x 24" was cut by tench then welded to the mixer. Holes were then
burned by torch in the Hopper and Mixer mounting plates and
dogging plates to
accommodate
a total of 16 bolts. Holes were
drilled in the floor and bolts set in concrete by brickirasons.
Insulation was then completed by placing nuts on the sixteen
(16)
bolts.
The Roller Loop Conveyor _s
approximately
one-hundred (100)
feet of convey er f ortni ng a square around the Hopper-Mixer. It
also was a rnzrcbased item including mounting legs; however.
Welder-Carinen did fabricate four (~-) mounting legs and two
cross-"braces -'nom 3j h'' x.
3" x 3"
an-le irons :'n lengths
ow
15-3/4"
and
36''
respectively. to support additional sections
1,
of xvo3
I .er::. Oc~;~:~r!,Cp1atec :ere cut by torch from
3/8
metal,
a hole burned vlmouEn each one, then their were welded to conveyox
legs. Bricfai_nsons t'rven drilled holes in concrete floor and set
bolts in concrete. Tt-!stalZation eras then completed by placing
nuts on the forty- eJ.~;t-_t
(48)
bolts."
the basis of the Petitioner's claim is that the Carrier erroneously
assigned to Carmen t<-Le ol-orh of
sF
ttin,- and reaxx~anging roller beds fox sand
distributors and setti
~2~;
a hopper collector and (celecta F10 1000) distributor.
Such work, it is a:Lleeed, falls
within
the category of "asse.~ialing and
alignment of shop machinery" wrich is covered by the 3,11achinists' Work
Classification ~~;1e
54.
-ei:itioner m aintalrxs that work within the .T:?achinist
classification on shoo machinery is reserved to Repair Lang Machinists at
Roanoke, whether i n the Foundry, Car
Shop,
Machine Seep or Blacksmith Shop,
"by long established practice and agreement."
Petitioner also asserts that
assignment
to the Carmen of the work in
dispute also violates Rule 31 of the: Zzg^reernen'c, Taaich states in part that:
"None but
mechanics, ap:~rentico s and hourly rated gang leaders
shall do mechanic's -v,oxk as per special rules of each craft.!'
The Carrier's assignment of the work was clearly in error, Petitioner
states, since the Cat-men's Classification of Work Rule contains no reference
to tools and machinery and other shop r,iact~.inery or tool and die making.
Form 1 Aware'!.
No.
Page
3
Docket No.
7305-T
2-N&W-MA-'77
The Carrier urges denial of the claim .fox the following reasons:
The
work at issue is not within the Machinists' Class4ficaticn Of
Work Rule
54
nor has it been performed exclusively by members of teat
craft. Hoppers and conveyors axe fixtures, not mechanized, nor pneu--nat:ic
and hydraulic tools and. machinery and other shop machinery as in fu1e
54.
The hoppers and conveyors involved in this dispute, Carrier adds, were
purchased prefabricated equipment or fixtures; their mounting and installation
has frequently been performed by other crafts and other Departments at
Roanoke and elsewhere, not denied by Petitioner. In sup
nort of its statement, Carrier submits an affidavit by its Supervisor Dies, Jigs and Fixtures
listing seven car program changeovers dating back to
19166
and asserting
that carmen and welder-cax'men have installed and removed this same type of
roller conveyor and similar fixtures or pieces of eciuipment that cane under
the heading of dies, jigs, and fixtures in the Car Departn.ent.
Even if machinists may have performed si::.ilar ;rorh in the past, as
Petitioner claims, this does not constitute exclusive jurisdiction over such
work and the Organization :nay not cl
as:.. exclusive rights to such work.
Alas
ent a craft's exclusive right to perfoz-.n certain work, ns,nagement retaln;s
the right t0 assign t..e ~sOrk to va-rious classes or crafts. Certainly,
Carrier a.r.,~,'aes, A.)vxnlng, Vreldi ng, and Setting of bolts in concrete p°rforlrled
in connection with f;,e
disputed
work by the welders (Carl:en) and bric:.L~so:a
is not work belonging exclusively to machinists.
Petitioner has not raised a
challenge
concerning the work in dispute
until the instant clw:~n, even though such T·rorh. has been performed prior to
and dw'ir?g the tE:-P1 of tiie current :~ic;reeIaE.'ni., ~,rh' Ch dates from
1c149.
Carrier
therefore holds, ct!
-_n; precedent hoard Awards. that uerfornance of the
work by Caxanen rot abro,r-,wted or changed by the current agreement constitutes
a practice s-rnich has tile same effect as if it were an A-reemern provision.
(See Third Division ~~wards
57I;7
(~Te:~e),
4086
(Farker),
4I+93
(Carter), and.
236).
The Carrier slso holds that no basis exists for a monetary claim, since.
neither the named c i.ai.-aauts nor any other machinist lost tix:o.
The Carrier and the Carmen dist7ute the Machinsts on the nur:ber ofr
individuals and --ra::_"ber of days on zrich the di.spated work was perfox':red.
The record includes signed affidavits from three of the named ca,rrnen that
they did not perfo_~: an)y of the disputed work.
The Fis_1T:~ay Ca=ev, as a party in interest, filed a statement support_n
the Carrier's claim that carrnen have installed and removed -oll--r conveyors
and similar pieces o f ectui~:mnt. C armen also submitted conies of job
postings for ,.,-,elder -c.a,z:~er1 in the Frei SIit Car ,Chop to do general work
inc7_udirZ. wo'r.'::. on ji~-,s, . dies and fixvures. (1:.e Referee notes that one of
these job bulletins =_s dated be-fore, and the others after, the dates when
the work gvvinE rise to this dispute eras perfozied.)
Form 1 Award
No. 7378
Page
4
Docket No.
7305-T
2-N&W-MA-'77
The positions bulletined to the Carmen craft, .referred to above,
surfaced another a_ea of disagreement between Machinists and Carrier.
Machinists maintain that Foundry welder jobs axe bulletined to mechanics
in the
Locomotive
Department, nearer to Cam. en. Tire Carrier holds that the
Foundry, where tine disputed work was done, is part of the Car DepaY·tment anal
that welder jobs there are bulletined to Carmen. None of the machinists
claimants have bulletined positions in the Foundry, according to the Carrier.
This Board, following long-established principle,
will. not attempt to
resolve these conflicting statements. In any event, job postings or
bulletins are not necessarily dete-YT-ni native of the assignment of work,
unless so vested by specific language of the Agreement.
The record does disclose that the work in dispute has been performed
by employees of other than the Machinists' cra:''h,. Petitioner has offered
no evidence to the contrar;;r. Indeed, this is borne out in an affidavit
submitted by tire General Cnairruan of the Sheet I:Ietal workers, which states:
"For over
50
gears the work of installing and repairing of
shop mach-i.nevy and related ec~?aipment has been performed by
the en:plo,-,,-ess of ' the '.Iachinis t,~ Electrical
-.7
'ekers and Sheet
Metal s;orher
Crafts.
They hat' re performed their work as
per their C1asN·ii°ication
of
7
~;or>> Rules
nn
all Departments
of Rola-_rioke Shoes. The jobs have been so ;.~,.Wlet9_ned and
with a repair
r'8.Y1c,
designation."
a.~ , ~_r~nC'd
'GT1 0
0
There is no necessity to cite prior Awards for this Board's repeated
decisions that absent a clear and unambiguous rule, past practice governs.
The key issue, therefore, is wtmther the r~.`achinists' Classification of
Work ~'~ule unar:biguously covers the work in question, so as to be determinat,ive
of Machinist jurisdiction. As indicated
bar
the detailed statement of the
work involved., wiaat was primarily involved ::as the cutting -by torch of
dogging
plats
and welding them to t'. .a legs of the 1-Hopper-111viixer a-ad to
the Roller I~ocn Conz ezrcrw, respectively; cutting holes by torch in the
Hopper-i'Iixor mountin,7 · plates; an-1 t cn bolting the plates to the floor. The
Z^7elder-Carmen also fabricated four :ounting legs and two cross braces to
support additional sections of rollers.
We do not find support for the claim in the rules cited by the
Petitioner. T^ie rind the work involved is not, under the terms of the
Agreement-, work helot-yi ng exclusively to mc..ynbers of the i..achinists' craft.
Petitioner has offered no evidence to the contrary that the
disputed
Z'rork
has been pcxformed by other tt!an rr:wchinists. Indeed, the evidence is clear
that other crafts, specifically Ca:rr::en, have historically performed identical
work.
Fox^_n 1
Page
5
Award No.
7378
Docket No.
7305
2-N&w-rte- ` 77
There is ample precedent, in rulings by this Board, that in the absence
of an express assigrznent of work by a specific rule ox provision of an
agreement, past practice is critical in any deter!Yiination as to whether that
work, within the confines of the agreement, belongs exclusively to a
particular craft.
Evidence with respect to 'cast practice in assigning the work involved
in this case does not
support
past practice claim. The evidence offered by
the claimants does not su~oYOrt their ri ght to perform the work exclusively
by past practice. Petitioner has failed to establish that the work in
question was reserved sole:Ly to machi nists, or thlat it belongs to or has
been performed exclusively
uy
machinists in t'ne past.
We fail to find. violation of arty, agreement rule.
Accordingly, the Board rules the clai.:n must be denied.
A W A R D
Parts 1 and 2 of Claim denied.
Attest: Executive Secretax77
iVational Railroad Adjustment Board
NATIOIZU RAILROAD ADJfsSIi-_,iVT BOA?D
By Order of Second Division
~,~;u;°'..'~JT1~,Y'7.E: ~-':.SCI= - r~:~M:,.:..;.2'
a'L1~..::?,"t:~_~:S,s1Sv~i,n'GP
Dated Chicago, Illino.s, this lath day of October, 177.