Form 1 NAT?'Ola:G RAILROAD ADJUSTP.'IENT BOARD Award No. 7491
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 7439-T
2-SCL-SM-'78

The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Theodore H, O'Brien when award was rendered.

( Sheet Metal Workers' International

( Association

Parties to Dispute:

(

( Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company

Dis up te: Claim of Fmployes:

1. On ox about April 14 & 15, 1975, the 7-ore:r~an .Yrisassigned Boilex7rakers

T. Brown, R. Deal and Welders Nester and Waldron to cut, fit and

weld in place splash _~;uaxds and doors on degreaser, Waycross,

Georgia, which replaced. those formerly build and installed by

Sheet Metal Workers.

2. That the Carrier be ordered to compensate Sheet Metal Workers R. .T. Brett, T. James and :U. A. Canon sixteen (16j hours each 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 ox' 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 were given due notice of hearing thereon.

The Claimants are Sheet Metal Workers employed at Carrier's shop in Waycross, Georgia. In the Air Brake Room at wTaycross there were two degreasers which were constructed with lighter than 10 gauge sheet iron. Since it was necessary to replace one of the degreasers because of its deteriorated condition, the Cla:ir.^.arit Sheet Ta.tal workers cotnmen;.ed constructing a degreaser front 16 gauge stainless steel rather than sheet iron. The Boilermaker's local chairman contended -chat tl".is work belonged to the Boilermaker's Craft and Carrier determined that stainless steel was not covered by the Sheet Metal Worker's Classification of Y~TOrh. Rule 85, and that in accordance with
Boilermaker's Classificat~i.ori of ~;~or~: Rule E0, and past practice, it was proper to assign this work to the Bo_ilcmciakez°'s craft.
Form 1 Award No. 7+91
Page 2 Docket No. 7+39-T
2-SCL-SM-`78

As a result of the Carrier's actions, the Sheet Metal Workers filed a claim on behalf of the Claimants, for six'seen (16) hours each at the overtime rate for April 14 and 15, 1675. The Sheet Metal Workers in processing their claim, contend that the Carrier violated the Agreement when they assigned Boilermakers and V?elders to perfor;n work which comes within Sheet Metal V?orkers' Classification of Work Rule 85, and that such work has been historically performed by Sheet Metal Workers on this property. When making final declination of the claim on ;°ay 17, 1976, the Carrier's Asst. Vice President, Personnel and Labor Relations advised the General Ct?as.rrr_ar_, in pertinent part, as follows:

"Your position that only Sheet Metal Yorkers must be assigned to fabricate parts made of stainless steel is not supported by past/ .practice or Rule 85. In fact, stainless steel is not included in the list of metals named. in that Rule.

The conference held wt V,«,ycross in April, 175, with Messrs. iiarper and i~oaci, to which you have referred, established. that both crafts - Sheet Metal. Workers and :Boilez-t.aker:; - have historically fabricated parts made of stainless steel."

Nevertheless, the petition:i_n g Organization takes the posit-ion that Rule 85 clearly places the bu-ild..in- and installing of :parts made of sheet metal of 10 gauge and lighter wzt'Lin their i~,oxk classification, and. therefor that the Carrier has violated Rule 85, !, a 26(a), Rule 2_7(a) and the Letter of Understanding dated Decerlber 20, 167 when they assigned this work to the Boilezr..wker's craft. When the dispute was sLiomitted to the Adjustment Board, the International Brotherhood of 'Boilermakers submitted an ex parte submission as an interested third. party to the instant claim. In response to the Sheet Metal Workers' position the Boilei:nakers claim that the work in cyestin:n is :specifically covered by their Classification of work %ul a 60, which states in pertinent part:

"(a) BoilermaLe.rs' work shall consist of ... any sheet iron or sheet steel work made of 16 gauge material or heavier ..."

Furthermore the Third ratty response contains the following statement of their position:

"the Boilermakers also respectfully submv.t that since the Sheetmetal IV;orkers` Org,anizat:i_on has not complied with the jurisdictional provisions of the Letter of Under standi.r_g ..., this claim is pre2natu:cely before this Board and accordingly, subject to dismissal."

Form 1 Award No. 71+91
Page 3 Docket No. 71+39-T
2-scL-sM- '78

Attachment "A", page 2 of the Sheet ivetal Workers' submission, contains the Letter of UnderNtanding dated December 20, 1967, which is signed by the Carrier and repre;emtataves of each of the Shop Craft Organizations, including the Sheet Metal Workers. This letter contains, in pertinent part, the following language:

"When the consolidated Agreement becomes effective, it is therefore agreed that where conflicts exist regarding specific items of work. in the classification of work rules of the new Agreement, no changes in the practices of performing such work that were in effect prior to the mer·gcs will be made by the Company until such conflicts or jurisdictional disputes are settled.

The Organization will present to ,nanagement their proposals for settl_ement of such conflicts or disputes, and the raanage:.~tent will accept any reasonable proposal."

The Sheet Metal ;~;ork_e.rs maintain that the work -in Question in the instant claim is reserved to then by their Classification of 1~'Tork Rule, while the Boilennakers, i n their ex paste sul.~mission, contend that the -v!ork is reserved to them by their Classification of ,,'ork ;usLe. Furthermore, boil the Sweet Metal Workers and the Boiler-,,.akc:rs claim jurisdiction over the work in question on the basis of bast practice.

It is clear from the record before us that a jurisdictional dispute exists regarding specific ite~ts of work in the Classification of t°;o.rk Rules of the two Organizations, and that said dispute rnzst be disposed of in accordance ~rith the hotter of Understanding, dated Decenber 20, 1967. This procedure was agreed to, by all concerned parties, for the settlement of such disputes. It is manifestly clear tint the Sheet Metal Workers have failed to avail themselves of such procedure.

There'is no provision contained in the Letter of Understanding that should the crafts fail to reach agree-ent, then this Board shall settle the jurisdictional dispute. We have no jurisdiction to add such a provision to that Letter of Understanding. The claim shall therefore be dismissed.

A W A R D

Claim dismissed for lack of jurisdiction..

Foam 1 Award No. 7+91
Page 4 Docket No. 7ZE39~'
-scL-srz- '78
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTIET7 BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest: Executive Sec.-etaxy

National Railroad Adjustment Board

x,.~=:~ . .

-T110 t:..la't"i e t'}iasGh - I'aC12ri:1.1i1Stmt~.V: :fiSSast'dnt

Dated atf Chicago, Illinois, this 4th day of April, 1978.