Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 8417
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 8314
2 -S LSW-EW-' 80
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Higdon C. Roberts, Jx. when award was rendered.



Parties to Dispute: ( (Electrical Workers)
(
( St. Louis Southwestern Railway Comic ny

Dispute: Claim of Employes:





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 June 21, 1934.

This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.



The claimant (M. W. Williams) claims he should have been paid a rate differential for cable splicing. He is employed normally as a Division Lineman, but that on a nmnber of named dates, he was required to splice cable, which is Equipment Installer work, and he's entitled to tlm higher rate of the Equipment Installer. The organization contends Subsection 2 of Rule 2 classification of work, quoted below, is controlling:


Form 1 Award No. 8417
Page 2 Docket No. 8314
2-SISW-EW-180
"inside and outside in connection with telegraph, radio
and or telephone service. Assisting equipment installers
telephone shop equipment men and cable splicers. Under
scoring added)

A reading of this rule in conjunction with Rule 2-1 classification of work, Equipment Installer



would, because of the language specificity, seem to sustain the claim.

However, the carrier contends the words "cable splicing" refer to lead cable only and that traditionally (25 years) plastic cable has been repaired and spliced by Linemen. In support of this, carrier gives a list of specific places where such work has been performed in the past:











Further carrier states, and the organization did not disagree, there has been no similar claim filed since the introduction of the plastic cable. We find the organization's statement that they were unaware of this type of work being done by Lineman specious.

From the evidence, it is apparent that the cable splicing (plastic) performed by the claimant is a work practice mutually accepted over a long period of time. Such longstanding, unquestioned past practices constitute acceptance of the interpretation of the carrier in the instant case.
Form 1
Page 3

A W A R D

Claim denied.

Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board

Award No. 8417
Docket No. 8314
2-SISW-EW-'8o

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

By Order of Second Division


By _

Dated