Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTP.ENT BOARD Award No.
E
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 7778-T
2-SC-EW-' 79
The Second' Divis ion consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee James F. Scearce when award was rendered.
( System Federation No. 42, Railway Employes'
( Department, A. F. of L. - C. I. 0.
Parties 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 93 and 26(a) of the current
agreement, as well as the December 20, 1967 Letter of Understaniing,
when Carrier assigned Machinist Lavender to perform F,lectrician's
work of reconditioning, resurfacing and/or dressing of generator
sliprings on SCL Diesel Unit 1765, on December 8, 1975.
_ That, accordingly, the Carrier be ordered to compensate Electrician
S. C. Freeman for four (4) hours at the pro rata rate.
In addition, that Carrier be ordered not to assign machinists or any
other craft other than Electricians to perform the work mentioned in
this dispute.
Findin,Qs
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 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 waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.
This ,dispute arises out of the decision of the Carrier to remove a work
task from an electrician, represnted by the IBEW, and reassign it to a machinist,
represented by the IAM&AW. The work involved the dressing or turning of a
slipring on the alternator (or generator) of a Diesel locomotive, while in place.
Of apparent importance here was the device used to effect such corrective action
to the slipring, including the material or part of the device that came in contact with the marred surface of the slipring.
Form 1 Award No.
$139
Page 2
Docket No. 7778-T
2-SC-EW-179
According to the Organization, the honing or corrective device was a
modification of an existing one manufactured commercially and had been used,
since its introduction on the property some several months prior to date of
the incident prompting this dispute (December 8, 1975), by electricians.
The Organization also points to the undisputed right of electricians to
recondition slipring surfaces where such are in place on alternator/generator
on running units using other devices with a "diamond embedded cutting stone."
According to the Carrier, the nature of this work places it within the
jurisdiction of the machinist craft due to its similarity to a lathe
operation (the device in dispute here uses a "tool bit," which is adjustable,
according to the Carrier ) and because the Carrier has made previous assignments to machinists; the Carrier asserts the instant assignment was made to
the electrician in error and was violative of its past practice.
The Carrier asserts this to be a question of jurisdiction between the
two Organizations which would prompt implementation of the December 20, 1975
"Letter of Understanding" intended to resolve such disputes. We note that
while the work was in-place on an oprative unit, rather than being performed
in a shop, representations are made on the record by both electricians and
machinists to having performed such work. We also note that the IAPJ.~-Af has
intervened asserting claim to such work.
We are compelled to conclude that there is, indeed, a question of
jurisdiction here and that this Board, under the circumstances, is neither
equipped nor authorized to interpose itself in the resolution of this dispute.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
By _~
semarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 17th day of October, 1979.