Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENI BOARD Award No.
7601
· SECOND D1TlISION Docket No. 7468-T
2-SCL-EW-'78
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Abraham Weiss when award was rendered.
( System Federation No. ~2, Railway Employes'
( Department, A. F. of L. - C. I. 0.
Part=ies to Dispute: ( (Electrical Workers)
(
( Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company violated the current
working agreement, particularly Rules 1(a) and 29(a), when
Carrier required and permitted Signal Maintainers to assist
Communications Miaintainer in the perfoxrqance of work belonging
exclusively to Seaboard Coast Line Communications Maintainers
on March
6,
1975.
2. That, accordingly, the Carrier be ordered to additionally
compensate Communications Maintainer J. L. HaS~uood six (6)
hours and thirty (30) minutes at his punitive rate of pay.
Find^>>n11js:
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 eni3_>loyes involved in this
dispute are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the
Raihr-_t~Y~- Labor Act as approved June 21, 1931A..
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction ov e_.` the dispute.
involved herein.
'Parties to said dispute vaived right of appearance a t hearing ther eon.
This claim is in behalf of Con tnunications Mainta=iners
idzo
allege
exclusive ju,ri sdic Lion over the ins ta7=Lation and remr-)'val of Compar~v--o-v,~-zed
communications
suppO^tS
(i.e., poles), including tlioue 'that Support both
communica:L:ion 1,rjres and signal wires. The Carrier violated t)-a agreem~erit,
Petitioner (IBFM ) G.saertu, 'by permitting Sign==al Ma-` ntainex's (i'rotherhood
of Railroad S1gn,-J~?en) to assist the C0:-,'rianicatlonC^, employees. The
T c. , -r ·i c. -t-
and
.f-
Sitna-J
'n
s
Orc va:z ?!iad.e a
p.1Y'~y
to -this
Ci1..~p:a.UE.'
vhiUth-eir statf:nc:.'n.'t,
f i1..ed in the record. of this Appeal,
1S
herdby acknoa_L ed-ed.
f
Form 1 Award No.
7601
Page
2
Docket No.
7458-T
2-SCZ-EW-'78
The Electricians' Organization relies on Rule l (a) -- Classification
of Work Rule--Communications hKintainex, of their Agreement which provides
in part:
"Communications Maintainers' work shall include
constructing, installing, repairing, maintaining,
inspecting., testing and removing of Company-owned:
communication lines and their supports..., together
with all appurtenances, devices, apparatus and
equipment necessary to said systems and devices as
mined herein, and all other work generally recognized
as Communications Maintainers' work ....
No employee other than -chose classified herein will
be required ox permitted to perform any of the work
covered by this Agreement."
However, Dale l(a) lends no support to Petitioners' position. It is
silent about poles that support both signal and co=anunication wires. Hence,
since the rule is neither specific nor unairbiguaus with respect -to the
situation at issue in this case, we must look to past practice. Viewed
fxoan this perspective, the record indicates that both crafts have pan-ticipated
in the work described herein (where poles.are used for both communication
and signal wires) and that neither craft has demonstrated exclusive right
to such z,;ork on the basis of system-wide custom, tradition, or past
practice.
Petitioner also relies on a Carrier letter dated December 20,
1967
which deals with contraciuing out work "involving relocation of ,poles,
crossarns, wires, etc.," and provides that when such cork is contracted
out, "a telephone maintainer
hill
be present to lend assistance to the
contractor." This letter is construed by Petitioner as assigning exclusive
jurisdiction to Electrical Worhers over Si"n.almen, especially since Sign
have no such l.etter. Petitiole;r'
S
reliance on this letter for purposes of
establishing exclusive jurisdiction is misplaced, in our judgment, since
it refers to and relates only to the Carrier's right to subcontract the
relocation of poles to outside firms.
Prior awards of this Board have found that the work involved in this
dispute does not belong exclusively to either the Electricians or the
Signalmen and that, therefore, this work maybe assigned to either.
We concur with these previous Awards and hold that Carrier did not
violate the Electrical Workers' Agreement by a tilizin`; both communications
employees and signal employees in the perfo~:mance of -the involved work.
The poles involved in this won'wera in fact used jointly fox comimunica
tions and signal lines. Given this fact, both the sig:2a.l ezrlployees and
the communication erI)loyees had cla-ini to this work., and the
utilization of both groups of employees to fix. rfoxm the work does not
hoxm 1
Page
3
Award No.
7Col
Docket udo.
'j!;-68-T
2-s Cz-EW-'
78
constitute a violation of the Agreement. (See Second Division Awards
7215, 571,
and
5644,
among others.)
A V A R D
Claz.m denied.
Attest: Executive Secretary
T4at.i.onaw'1_ Railroad Adjustment Board
13y
~f
Rosemarie 13rasch - Ac~mini;:t)_ai;ive _`v.:>s.-i::tani;
Dated
au
Chicago, I1._i'i.:rco N, this 111-th day of July,
1978.
T?ATIO-NAh ItA._'CLROAD ADJiTSTMETIT BOARD
By Order
of Second Division