Form 1 NATICAVAZ RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 8293
SECOND D=- ION Docket No.
8159
2-LT-U'SWA-'
80
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and
in
addition Referee Kay McMurray when award was rendered.
( United Steelworkers of America
( District No.
28,
AFZ-CIO-CLC
Parties to Dispute:
Lake Terminal Railroad. Company
Dispute: Claim of Emplayes:
(1) On March
20, 1978
at approximately 8:10 A.M.., Supt. Mechanical J.
Uldrich, General Car Foreman J. Justice, Asst. Trainmaster B. Sultzer,
M of W Foreman J. Tagliovoni and several M of W employees retailed C&0
Gondola.
35597
on Track 1-A at the 14R switch. This action is a
premeditated and deliberate violation of Scope Rule 16(d) and Definitions
(4)
of the controlling agreement.
(2) As penalty for this violation it is requested that the Carrier compensate
the following named employees eight (8) hours at their respective rates,
in addition to all other earnings: D. Burgos
X24;
W. Melendez X66;
F. Tortes X22; and R. Riggers
#1469.
Findings:
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 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.
It is clear from the record that the principles associated with the claim have
been adjudicated on numerous occasions by this Board.
As a matter of fact, the organization in its submission points out that
Second Division Award.
5912
rendered on the same property denied a case identical.
to the one here under consideration. In presenting this claim it maintains that
the award did not take into consideration that the organization based its previous
grievance on a violation of the scope rule and not the contractual language which
was adjudicated. It is axiomatic that a scope rule standing alone is almost
meaningless. The parties negotiate a complete contract with provisions which
circumscribe, define, and give meaningful application to such rules. In the case
at bar, past practice and numerous awards have interpreted sections of the contract
which obviously were negotiated to further refine the meaning and application of
the scope rule. This Board. can find no reason to differ with these previous
Form 1 Award No,
8293
Page
2
Docket No.
8159
2
-hT-U'SWA-'
80
awards. Accordingly, we find that for reasons spelled out in Award
5912
together
with its attendant award references, the carrier did not violate the agreement.
AWARD
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest; Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
BY _ __
srie Brasch - AdminisT-rative Assistant
Dated atT Chicago, Illinois this 26th day of March
1980,