Foam 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTr%`~TJIT BOARD Award No. '7712
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 7531-T
2-C&o-r4A- '78

The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Robert A. Franden when award was rendered.

( International Association of Machinists and

( Aerospace Markers

Parties to Dispute : (

(

( Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company

Dispute: Cl aim of En:72,ALaves:

1. That the Chesapeake and Ohio Rail=,say Co:.iparky continues a violation

of the controlling Agreement by a.ssi fining other than Mach.-`Lr.:i.sts

to perform wo;~l-, which accrues to t-he Machinist Craft.

2. That, accordingly, nh.chi.n:i_st C, i:?azzone and Machinist Hel.-cer

J. Carte)? should be compensated at the pro rata rate of p=:.y, an an

hour per hour basis, utzti_l such the violation is arrested.

Findings:

The Second Division of the Ad,just~.~ent Board, upon the whole record. and all the evidence, find:; that:

The carrier or carriers and the emplaye or employes involved in this
dis :ithspute are respectively carrier and employe n the meaning of tre
Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 193+.

Thi s D:t.vzszon of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the d:is~r~.t

e: involved herein.

Parties to said dispute irz),ived rig',-it of appearance ad.. hearing thereon.

This is a cla:irt based upon the alleged :improper assignment of z.rork reserved to the M'achi.nists to Cax°inen in violation of the agreement bet?:reen the carrier and the organization. A third party notice was served an rise caxntten who filed submissions in the case.

At the outset the carrier alleges that the organization has not complied with. the provisions of the applicable agreement i-ri :th regard to j11r1Sd1ct1V1a1 disuates. Supple?iient No, h to the Shop Crafts Agree:.~er_t, which is executed by both the machinists and the car-men, provides that jurisdicti.anal d isr~utes between the crafts ;vst be ta..ken up bet:aeen the crafts involved ?°ior to such dispute being handled with -the managc-lient of the carrier. The cG.rmen have joined in this procedural defense.
Form 1 Award No. 7712
Page 2 Docket No. 7y31-T
2-C&o-r~A-' 78

While the machinists argue to the contrary, this is without question a jurisdictional dispute, both crafts claiming the work in question. The procedure agreed upon among the parties for the resolution of jurisdictional disputes must be followed. This was not done in the instant case in that the matter eras not taken up between the machinists and the cabmen prior to the progression of the claim on the property. This matter is prematurely before this Board and is accordingly dismissed. See Airaxd No. 720,

A 4J A R D

Claim dissrniss ed.

r,~IMOI.iAT RAILROAD A.DJUST:-'!FIU BOAM)

By Order of Second Division.

Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board

.~---

!....-.,;.'~...ia'^i'~.r,A~ ~.yrtM...,.~ ~~..·. """-~,^d~
By ~ ,, __.. -__
.----~';os--;_:a,~5_e i3xwsca - Aarninivvrative iasiwt;atn't

Dated avChica_o> Illinois, this 1st day of November, 178.