Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 8316
SECOM DIVISICU Docket No. 8163-T
2-MP-EW-'80
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee John B. haRocco when award was rendered.
( System Federation No. 2, Railway Employes'
( Department, A.F. of L. - C. I. 0.
Parties to Dispute: ( (Electrical Workers)
(
( Missouri Pacific Railroad Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company violated Rules 25 (a) and
(c), 106
and 107 (a) of the June 1,
1960
controlling agreement;
Article III of the September 25,
196.
Agreement when they assigned
Machinist J. 0. Bowman and Machinist Apprentice A. E. Smith to perform
electricians' work on Monday, December
19, 1977,
thus, depriving
Electricians C. E. Rice and Electrician J. R. Walker of their contractual
rights under the provisions of the Agreement at Houston, Texas.
2, That, accordingly, Carrier be ordered to compensate Electrician C. E.
Rice and Electrician J. R. Walker two hours and forty minutes (2 '4-0")
each at time and one-half for Monday, December
19, 1977.
Findings:
The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all
the evidence, finds that:
The carrier or carriers and the employs or employes involved in this dispute
are respectively carrier and employs 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 waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.
This claim was brought by two electricians who assert they lost premium
time of 2 hours 40 minutes each when the carrier assigned two machinists to
disconnect traction motor leads at the carrier's Settegast Diesel Shop.
Most of the pertinent facts are undisputed. On December
19, 1977,
the
claimants were instructed to stand by to disconnect the electrical leads that
run between the traction -motor and the main generator. The motor was in bad
order and the traction motor had. to be changed out. In order to change out the
traction motor, several preparatory steps are necessary including the uncoupling
of the electrical leads. The preparatory steps are normally assigned sequentially
to machinists, sheet metal workers and the electricians. The electrical workers
only participation in the preparation of
a
traction motor for a change out is
the disconnection of the leads. (The disconnection process involves the
uncoupling of several leads, after the lead clamps, lead blocking and lead
Form 1 Award No. 8316
Page 2 Docket No. 8163-T
2-MP-EW-'80
insulation boots are removed). The machinists are responsible for actually
changing the traction motor. The process is reversed when the traction motor
is placed back in the diesel engine, though reconnecting the electrical leads is
more complicated than the disconnection process. Before the claimants could
perform their disconnection duties, they were called away and ordered to perform
other work. At the insistence of the carrier's foreman, two machinists performed
the task of disconnecting the electrical leads.
The Electricians contend that disconnecting the traction motor electrical
leads is work reserved exclusively to electricians under Rule 107(a) which
states, in its most relevant part, that, "Electricians' work, including regular
and helper apprentices, shall include electrical wiring ... of all ... motors ..."
According to the Electricians, the jurisdictional provinces of the machinists
and .electricians were conclusively settled by an agreement dated June
6, 1960
whereby only electricians could disconnect motor leads. The carrier relies on
the incidental
work
rule which states;
"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 work'
(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 connecting of parts and appliances such as wires, piping,
covers, shielding and other appurtenances from or near the
main work assignment in order to accomplish that assignment.
Incidental work shall be considered to comprise a preponderant
part of the assignment when the time normally required to
accomplish 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.
If there is: a d.Lspute~as- to-whether~or not work comprises a
'preponderant parts of the work assignment the carrier may
nevertheless assign the
work
as it feels it should be
assigned and proceed. or continue with the work and assignment in question; however, the Shop Committee may request
that the assignment be timed by the parties to determine
whether or not the time required to perform the incidental
work exceeds the time required to perform the main work
assignments. If it does, a claim will be honored by the
carrier for the actual time at pro rata rates required to
perform the incidental
work,"
The carrier argues that it may do as it pleases in assigning work under the
rule to promote maximum efficiency in the shop. According to the carrier, the
Form 1 Award No.
8316
Page
3
Docket No.
8163-T
2-MP-EW-180
primary work of changing out the motor took approximately eight hours while
disconnecting the motor leads takes less than twenty minutes. The electricians
respond by arguing the carrier has failed to prove that the disconnection of
motor leads is incidental not only because the electricians are usuaJSy assigned
to perform the work (and were originally assigned the work here) and but also
because the Settega.st facility is not a running repair location. The Machinists,
a third party respondent, disagree with both the carrier and the electricians
arguing that the disconnection of electrical motor leads may be performed
pursuant to Rule 52(a). The last sentence of Rule 52(a), which defines the
classification of Machinists' work, states, "Machinists may connect and disconnect
and wiring, coupling, or pipe connection necessary to make or repair machinery
or
equipment."
The incidental work rule supercedes the classification work provisions in
the agreement. Second Division Award No.
6440
(Lieberman,
1973).
However, we
disagree with the carrier's position that the rule can be applied, at the carrier's
unfettered discretion, in any situation to promote efficiency in the shop. The
carrier mu.st'prove that the work believed to be incidental satisfied all the
elements of rule. Careful analysis and interpretation of the incidental work rule
reveals that, to be incidental, the work must;
l.) b e performed at a running repair location;
2,) be capable of being performed by the employe who actually performs
the work at the carrier's discretion;
3.)
not be a -preponderant part of the total work, i.e.., it mast consume
less time than the main work assignment;
be anci7liary to performing the main work, i.e., involving the mere
connection or disconnection of appurtenances; and
5.) not involve the overhauling, repairing, modifying or improvement of
equipment.
Thus, this Board must careful7,y examine the application of the incidental.
work rule on a case by case basis. The Electricians concede that the disconnection
(as opposed to reconnecting) is capable of being performed by machinists, that;
the disconnection is not a preponderant of the total work but ancilliary to the
main work and that the disconnection does not constitute a repair. Here, the
question in issue is whether the work was performed at a running repair location.
A diesel engine repair facility can often be used for the dual purposes of a
major repair point arid a running repair location. Second Division Award No.
7610 (Lieberman, 1978). Settegast qualifies as such a facility. The organization
has failed to tender any evidence which disputes the dual characterization of the
Settegast facility Ibid. The shop often replaces parts in diesel engines
quickly to minimize the interruption in service. The engine involved here was
out of service for only eight hours. It is of no consequence that electricians
were originally assigned the disconnection work. Once they were reassigned, the
carrier then had the burden of proving the work fell within the incidental work
rule. In this particular instance, the carrier strictly complied with all the:
Form 1 Award No. 8316
Page
4
Docket No. 8163-T
2-MP-EW-t80
prerequisites to the application of the incidental work rule. Our decision,
does not, however, endorse the carrier's view that it has absolute discretion
to apply the rule whenever it pleases. The carrier has the affirmative burden
of showing that the work claimed to be incidental satisfies all the elements
of the rule.
Because the incidental work rule supersedes the regular work classification,
we need not discuss or decide the relationship between Rule 107(x) and Rule
52(a).
A W A R D
The claim is denied.
NATIONAL RA1MQ4D ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
By
semarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated t Chicago, Illinois, this 16th day of April, 1980.