Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 7891
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 7647-T
2-MP-MA-'79
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Abraham Weiss when award hues rendered,
( International Association of Machinists and
( Aerospace Workers
Parties to Dispute:
(
( Missouri Pacific Railroad Company
Dispute: Claim of FsnEloyes:
1. That the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company violated the controlling
Agreement, particularly Rules 26(a) and 52(a), when they
arbitrarily assigned Sheet Metal Workers to make repairs to the
X-250 wrecker.
2, That accordingly, the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company be ordered,
to compensate Machinist E. C. Roberts in the amount of four
hours pay at a Machinist's punitive rate of pay because Sheet
Metal Workers were assigned to repair the X-250 wrecker on March
25, 1976.
Findings:
The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the wrote 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 Tune 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.
A cable on one of Carrier's wrecking cranes located on the repair track
in the Car Department of Carrier's mechanical facility at North Little Rock
had become worn and had to b e cut. The instant dispate arose when, by
Carrier assignment, Sheet Metal Workers unfastened the cable clevis from the
wrecker's boom, dragged the cable off its winch, reapplied the clevis to
the remaining cable, and reattached the cable to the boom.
Petitioner filed the instant claim on behalf of Machinist Roberts on
the ground that Carrier violated the Agreement, particularly Rule 52(a),,
Machinists' Classification of Work, and Rule 26(a.), Assignment of Work.
Form 1 Award No.
7891
Page
2
Racket No.
767-T
2-MP-MA-'79
The Sheet Metal Workers, as an interested third party was notified of
the dispute, but did not respond.
Rule 52(a) reads, in relevant part:
"Machinists' work----shall consist of laying out, fitting,
adjusting, shaping, boring, slotting, milling, and
grinding of metals used in building, assembling,
maintaining, dismantline (See Note (A) and installing
machinery, locomotives and entines----cranes, hoists,
elevators and all other work generally recognized
as machinists' work."
Rule 26(a) reads, in pertinent part:
"None but mechanics or apprentices regularly employed as
such shall do mechanics' work as per special rules of
each craft----."
Petitioner asserts that the wrecker has three hoists, thus placing it
within the purview of cranes and hoists listed in Rule 52(a).
Petitioner maintains that when a cable became defective, machinists
historically removed the clevis from the boom and cut off the defective
cable. A sheet metal worker then applied the clevis to the remaining
cable and a machinist reapplied the clevis to the wrecker's boom. Petitioner
submitted proof of practice at the location involved in this case, through
statements by machinists employed there. Petitioner contends that Carrier
has not contested its clans on the record that machinists have performed
the work in question. Carrier, however, states that machinists, when available, have performed the work at North Little Rock, but that other crafts
have also done the work.
Carrier relies on Rule
97,
Sheet Metal Workers' Classification of Work,
Note A to Rule 52(a), and the National Incidental Work Rule effective
April
9, 1970,
which read as follows:
"Rule
97
(Sheet Metal Workers' Classification of Work):
Sheet metal workers ... work shall consist of dismantling
(for repairs only), ... parts made of sheet copper, brass,
tin, zinc, white metal, lead, black, planished, pickled
and galvanized iron..."
Note A to Rule 52(a):
"In the dismantling of locomotives and machinery for
repairs, all work incident thereto in connection with
the job of dismantling these locomotives and machinery
for repairs, shall be performed by mechanics and helpers.
In the assignanent of mechanics and helpers the number of
helpers assigned shall not exceed the number of mechanics
Form 1 Award No.
7891
page
3
Docket No. 76+7-T
2-MP-MA-'79
"assigned, and this combined number of men constituting
the crew shall perform either mechanics' work or helpers'
work irrespective of their classification and without
regard to classification of work under other rules of this
agreement."
The National Incidental Work Rule effective April
9,
1970:
"_
. At running repair work locations which are not
designated as outlying points where a mechanic or
mechanics of a craft or crafts are performing a work
assignment, the completion of which calls for the
performance of 'incidental works (as hereinafter
defined) covered by the classification of work rules
of another craft or crafts, such mechanic or mechanics
may be required, so far as they are capable to perform
such incidental work provided it does not comprise a
preponderant part of the total amount of work involved
in the assignment. Work shall be regarded as 'incidental'
when it involves the removal and replacing or the disconnecting and connection of parts and appliances such as
wares, piping, covers, shielding and other appurtenances
from or near the main work assignment in order to accomplish
4
that assignment. Incdental work shall be considered to
comprise a preponderant part of the assigrnnent when the
time normally required to acccrn_plish it exceeds the time
normally required to accomplish the main work assignment.
In no instance will the work of overhauling, repairing,
modifying or otherwise improving equipment be regarded
as incidental."
The Carrier alleges that the Incidental Work Rule is applicable because
the "pouring" of the cable clevis assembly was the main task requiring
the preponderance of time and that, consequently, the disputed work was
minor or incidental. Carrier stated that the disputed work "would require
no more than 20 minutes to perform".
Petitioner, on the other hand, denies that the Incidental Work Rule
is applicable, on the ground that the rule only applies to running repair
work, but that the disputed work was a routine maintenance function and
not running repair or work incidental thereto.
We are of the opinion that Petitioner has made a sufficient showing,
on the property, of history and practice in performing the work here at
issue at this location. Accordingly, we find that the work in question
was machinists' work under Article 52(a) of the Agreement -vi.th Carrier and
that assignment of this work to the sheet metal workers constituted a
violation of Rule 52(a). We shall, therefore, sustain Part l of the
claim.
Form 1 Award No. 7891
page
4
Docket No. 76+7-T
2-MP-MA- 179
The work involved in this dispute required only minutes which was not
disputed by Petitioner nor was a tune check requested, P.Zoreover, Claimant
Rob erts was on duty and pay status at the time the disputed work was
performed and suffered no monetary damage as a result of the violation of
Rule 52(a) supra. Consequently, we shall deny Part 2 of the claim.
A W A R D
Part 1 of the claim is sustained.
Part 2 of the claim is denied,
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Mvision
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
(~axie
Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 19th day of Aprils
1979.