C:\AWARDS\OUT\2-08814.htm

Form 1 NATIOKAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 8814 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 8659-T 2-MP-EW-'81 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Thomas F. Carey when award,was rendered. Internaticnal Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Parties to Dispute: ( Missouri Pacific Railroad Company Dispute: Claim of Employes:

1. That the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company violated Rules 1 and 24 (a,) of the Communications Agreement effective August 1, l977, Memorandum of August 12, 1960.d, and Article III of the September 25, 1964 Agreement when Foreman Sisk and Engineer Neely were assigned to perform Communications Maintainers' work, thus, denying

Communications Main

tainer R. D. Babylon at Kansas City, Missouri his contractual rights under the Agreements and as supported in the Memorandum of August 12, 1960.d, on October 16, 1978.

2. That, accordingly, the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company be ordered to compensate Communications Maintainer R. D. Babylon two and seven-tenths hours (2.7') at the overtime rate for October 16, 1978.

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.

Partite to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.

The record indicates that the claimant was employed by the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, hereinafter referred to as the Carrier, as a Communications Maintainer with assigned work week and bulletined hours, Monday through Friday, 7:30 a.m. to x+:00 p.m., stand-by day - Saturday, rest day - Sunday; headquarters - Kansas City, Missouri. Mr. Si`slc..is employed by the Carrier as a foreman and Mr. Neely is employed by the Carrier as an engineer. Rather than notify the certain personnel at the Carrier's Diesel Shop in Kansas City, Missouri of the need for a Communications Maintainer to make repairs to the radio hand set receptacle with the desire to install a radio hand set on MP Unit 1909, Foreman Sisk and Engineer Neely worked on the radio hand set receptacle to install a radio hand set on MP Unit 1909. Form 1 Award No. 8814 Page 2 Docket No. 8659-T 2-MP-EW-181 The Organization contends violation of the Rules governing Scope (Rule 1) and Seniority (Rule 21+) which set forth the Communications Maintainers' right to perform work under this Agreement as they have regularly done, and the Carrier's responsibility to continue to recognize the rights of these employes to do such work.

Rule 1 - Scope of the Communications Agreement effective August 1,

1977

reads:

"RUIE 1. SCOPE

This Agreement governs the rates of pay, hours of service

and working conditions of all employes in the Communications

Department specified in this Agreement engaged in the construction,

installation, maintenance, repairs, inspection, dismantling and

removal of telephone and telegraph transmission and switching

systems and associated equipment such as telephone, telegraph

and teletype equipment, fixed and mobile radio used for railroad

operational purposes, (including microwave systems), closed circuit

television, interoffice communications systems, yard speaker

systems, and all work generally recognized as communications work;

provided, however, that this will not prevent others acting under

the direction of a Communications Supervisor or District Officer from

utilizing spare equipment limited to plug-in modular units requiring

no specialized-knowledge or skills to restore service in cases of ,_~_rr

emergency.

NOTE: Nothing above shall prohibit a Supervisor in the

Communications Department from inspecting and

testing communications equipment and circuits

in the performance of his duties."

Further, Rule 24 (a) - Seniority of the same Agreement which reads

"RUIE 24.. SENIORITY

(a) Seniority of employes in each class covered by this

Agreement shall be coextensive with the scope of this Agreement."

"clearly establishes exclusivity of the work in question" to be that of the Communications Maintainer, realizing, the Communications Maintainer is the only class of employes covered under the Communications Agreement effective August 1, 1977. The Carrier raises as a defense the contentions that the Employes in this docket have failed to state facts upon which a claim or grievance can be based. In the absence of such facts, the Carrier submits that the claim should be denied. It is further the position of the Carrier that the claimant in this case, a monthly rated communication maintainer, would not have been compensated additionally above and beyond his monthly rate even if called in on Monday, the date of the ,9r
claim, to correct a communications failure. Form 1 Award No. 8814
Page 3 Docket No. 86`59-T
2-MP-EW-181

The Board notes that the Employe asserts that the foreman and engineer "worked on the radio handsets recepticle on MP unit 1909 with desires to install a handset". The Claimant has furnished no evidence in support of his factual contention. There is a lack of sufficient proof before the Board as to what work was performed or if it was ever completed.. Given the absence of proof sufficient to support the Employes contention and a lack of specificity the claim must fail.

A WAR D

Claim denied. NATIONAL RAIIROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD By Order of Second Division Attest: Executive Secretary National Railroad Adjustment Board By Rosemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 10th day of November, 1981.