Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 8058
SECOND DIVISION Docket No, 7887-T
2-L&N-sM-t79
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Bernard Cushman when award was rendered,
( Sheet Metal Workers' International
( Association
Parties to Dispute:
( Louisv:;lle and Nashville Railroad Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That the Louisville and Nashville Railroad. Company violated the
controlling agreement,, particularly Rule 87 at South Louisville
Shops, Louisville, Kentucky on October 14, 1977 when they
improperly assigned Boilermakers Crockett and Green the duties
of cutting, fitting, welding, and installing hand rails on the
steps of Storeroom Loading Dock.
2. That accordingly the Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company be
ordered to compensate Sheet Metal Workers F. R. Martin and 0. B.
Pierson four
(4)
hou:__^s each at the pro rata rate of pay for such
violation.
Findings:
The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and
all the evidence, finds that:
The carrier or carriers and the eonploye or employes involved in this
dispute are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the
Railway Labor Act as approved .June 21,
193+.
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 Boilermakers were given a third party notice that the dispute was
pending before the Board sad a submission was filed on behalf of the
Boilermakers and the Boilermakers were represented and participated in the
oral hearing in this case.
The claim herein was filed by the Sheet Metal Workers' International
Association based on the contention that the Carrier improperly assigned to
employees of the Boilermakers' Craft work accruing to the Sheet Metal
Workers. It was claimed that the Carrier improperly assigned Boilermakers
Crockett and Green to duties of cutting, fitting, welding and installing
hand rails on the steps of the Storeroom Loading Dock at its South
Louisville Shops on October
14, 1977.
The Sheet Metal Workers' contend
that this assignment was in violation of the organization's Classification
Form 1 Award No.
8058
Page
2
Docket No.
7887-T
2-I,&N-sM-'79
of Work Rule, Rule
87,
The organization also claims this work and in
particular says the making and applying of hand rails has been work which
has been assigned to the Sheet; Metal Workers in the past. The organization
cites the
19+6
Agreement between the Sheet Metal Workers and the Machinists
and certain correspondence from the Carrier as well as the payment of certain
claims which the Sheet Metal Workers assert as establishing a practice of
assigning the making and applying of hand rails to that Organization. The
Sheet Metal Workers concede that in the instant claim square tubing was
involved but argues that Rule
87
properly read includes the cutting, fitting
and applying of square tubing "pipe",
The Carrier claims that "'pipe" work is not involved and points out that
the material used consisted of square tubing. The Carrier states that there
has never been a determination. on the Carrier's property as to which Craft
makes installations of square tubing. The Carrier also points nut that the
Boilermakers also claim the work. The Carrier takes the -position that this
dispute is a jurisdictional problem that must be settled as provided under
Appendix A of the Agreement.
The Boilermakers claim that this work belongs to that Craft under Rule
70
arid that there has been a practice of installation of hand rails on
engines or running boards on such engines as well. as certain other work which
the Boilermakers consider as indicating that where the material used to
make hand rails involves square tubes the Boilermakers are entitled to
perform such work.
What has been said above demonstrates that the dispute does in fact
involve a jurisdictional dispute. Both the Boilermakers and the Carrier
assert that this matter should be settled by the procedures provided in
Appendix A of the Agreement which has been signed by both Crafts involved
in this dispute. That Agreement provides that when two organizations
signatory thereto claim the right to perform work, they shall reach an
agreement to settle arty disputes that exist between them relative to the
disputed work before any claim can be submitted to the Carrier. As was
stated by this Board in Award No.
6825
and quoted in Award No.
6$64:
"Appendix A is a valid and legally operative agreement,
entered into in good faith by both the Boilermakers and
Sheet Metal Workers. It provides the machinery to be
followed by those Organizations when a dispute arises
involving jurisdiction of work. Consistent with that
Agreement it was incumbent on the Sheet Metal Workers to
meet with the Boilermakers in order to resolve this dispute
over the work in question. No exceptions to this requirement
are contained in the Agreement and we have no jurisdiction
to impose any under the guise of contract interpretation.
Until such time as the parties decide to abrogate Appendix A,
we feel compelled to apply it to jurisdictional disputes, such
as the one now before us. Based on the foregoing we will
decline to accept jurisdiction over this dispute,"
Foam 1
Page
3
Award No. 8058
Docket No. 7887-T
2-L&N-SM-'79
In those cases, the claiia was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and
the Board will follow those cases in this proceeding.
A W A R D
Claim dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
BY l , ~.~/6
'~ v
os arie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at hicago, Illinois, this 29th day of August,
1979.