Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No.
X860
SECOND J)IVISION Docket No. 8662-T
2-TRRAofStL-EW~-'82
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Thomas F. Carey when award was rendered.
( International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
Parties to Dispute:
( Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis
Dispute: Claim of Employee:
1. That the Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis violated Rules 26,
86 and 87 of the April 1, 7945 controlling agreement, and Article III
of the September 25, 1964 Agreement when they assigned B&B Mechanic W.
Fitzgerald to perform electricians' work on Monday July 31, 1978, thus,
depriving Electrician Larry Roberts his contractual rights under the
provisions of the Agreements at St. Louis, Missouri.
2. That, accordingly, Carrier be ordered to compensate Electrician Larry
Roberts two hours and fort-, minutes (2'40") at time and one-half for Monday
July 31, 1978.
3. In addition to the money amounts claimed herein, the Carrier shall. pay
claimant an additional amomnt of 6% per annum compounded annually on the
anniversary date of the claim.
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 employee 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.
The record indicates that Claimant was employed by the Carrier as an electrician
with assigned work week and bulletined hours, Thursday through Monday, 4:30 pm to
1:00 am, rest days - Tuesday and Wednesday.
Mr. W. Fitzgerald is employed b5 the Carrier as a B&B Mechanic with as;signed
work week and bulletined hours Monda3 through Friday, 7:30 am to 4:30 pm, rest days -
Saturday and Sunday.
The Carrier was desirous to install a communications box at the Lesperance Stree
Yard Office that required the digging of a hole to set a pole stub after which the
communications box was to be mounted thereon.
The Communications Maintainer and Assistant Communications Maintainer were
assigned to perform the work, however, additional help was needed. The record shaves
B&B Mechanic Fitzgerald assisted at about 9:00 am on Monday, July 31, 1978.
,,
Form 1 Award i3o. 8860
Page 2 Docket No. 86f;2-T
2-TRRAofStL-1-W-'82
The
Organization cites
page 7_ of the Controlling Agreement
which
states:
"It is understood and agreed that the races and rates of pay
herein provided will apply to all clas.~es of employees represented
by System Federation No. 25 in the various departments of the
railroad to whom the
present
rates of gay and roles governing
employment are at present applied.
At present,
in
addition to employees
i3;
the Meth.=tnica'r and
,:~
Departments, System Federation No. 25
iepresents the ~"ol.'ioviag:
Maintenance of Way
Elec triciana
Department,
(,except Siknal y·**`
Departmen :) :
The Organization maintains this ru:le sets f< rth the Electrical (;raft's right to
perform work under their Agreement as they have regularly done, and further the
Carrier recognized B&B Electricians as the partifs to assist the Communications
Maintainers when the need is apparent.
The Organization cites Rules 26, 85, 86 and 87 as establishing their claims
that the disputed work is exclusively the work o' the Claimant.
The Carrier contends that the Organization Teas failed to show that the work of
digging a hole, is by custom, practice, tradition, oar Agreement, work
accruing
exclusively to a member of the Electricians` craft. The Carrier argues the digging
of a hole requires no special skill, training, knowledge or techniques. The Carrier
claims Messrs. Engel and Gibson, members of the l:aternational Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, enlisted the aid of B&3 Mechtaic Fitzgerald, who in turn
volunteered to accompany them to the work site aid dig the
necessary hole °'t:>;r~:°
i.nstructicn s from proper authority to do so.
The claim of the Employee essentially asserts that tie Carrier was in violation
of the cited Articles of the controlling agreemett "when =hey a~ed B&B Mechanic
Fitzgerald to perform electrician's work" (emphasis supplied) on July 31, 1978.
In their letter of September 21, 1979, some fourteen months later, the
Communication Maintainer and the Assistant Cornmuiication Maintainer describe the
events as follows:
"The undersigned wish to advice that on July 31, 1979 we were
assigned to set a pole stub at Lesperaxce Street Yard for the
mounting of a telephone box.
It has always been past practice to assign a B&B Electrician
to assist us when necessary.
Unbeknown to us by whom, B&B Mechanic
u,
Fitzgerald was
assigned to assist us in setting the p(1e stub."
Form 1 Award No.
8860
Page 3 Docket No. 8662-T
2-TRRAofStL-EW-'82
The record before the Board is silent as to which superior, if any, actually
assigned B&B Mechanic Fitzgerald to dig the hole. Yet the assertion of the Employes
is clear, the alleged assignment was in violation of the agreement. The burden of
establishing such an allegation rests with the Petitioner. Referee Kenan in Third
Division Award 15670 noted "The Employes have the burden of proving every element
of their claims". There is no proof of who assigned Fitzgerald and no rebuttal to
the Carrier's assertion that Fitzgerald volunteered to perform the task with the two
electricians.
In Third Division Award 22942, Referee Eischen determined:
"In denying the claim, Carrier asserts that the work was assigned
without its direction or approval. As was noted in our Award 3-20721,
Carrier cannot be held responsible for work performed 'without
instructions or communication with anyone in authority from the
Carrier.'. It is apparent from the record that the C&NW inspector
acted on his own motion. 'thus, there was no actual or apparent
BN authority extended and no principal-agent relationship
established. Accordingly, Carrier may not be held culpable for
the actions of the C;&NW inspector."
The Employes cite Rules 86 and 87 which state in pertinent parts:
"RULE 86
CLASSIFICATION OF ELECTRICIANS
Electricians' work shall consist of .·. and all other work
generally recognized as electricians' work."
"RULE 87
CLASSIFICATION OF LINEMEN
...,
and other work generally recognized as lineman's work
not provided for in Rule No. 86."
The task of digging a post hole does not require the skills of an electrician
within the terms of Rule 86. The Board has held in other disputes of this nature
(see
Second Division Award. 2223) involving the. electrical workers:
"*** We have held that there are certain types of work
requiring no skill or training to perform that cannot be
said to belong to any craft. We think the reasoning of Awards
6220 and 2932, Third Division, has application here. The
following from Award 2932 seems pertinent here:
'The replacement of a burned out electric light bulb in a train
order signal requires no special skill. It is just as commonplace as the replacing of a defective electric bulb in one-s
home. It is not recognized as the attribute of any particular
trade or profession. It is a routine function which anyone
Form 1
Page 4
Award No.
880
Docket No. 8662-T
2-~TRRAofSTL-EW-'82
could well perform. To hold that a cagier must call a
skilled employs who
might
often be a considerable distance
away, to replace an electric light bulb of ordinary type, was
never contemplated by the Scope Rule. If it should be so
construed of a contractual absurdity by interpretation.
The Board recognizes the necessity of protecting the wok of
signalmen as it does any other group under a collective agreement. But this does not mean that the simple and ordinary A.~:orc
that is somewhat incidental to any position or job and requiring
little time to perform, cannot be performed as a routine maser
without violating the current Agreement. To come within the
scope of the Agreement it must be work re~uiri.rcg the exercise of
some degree of skill possessed by a signalman. *** The contentions
of the organization attempt to draw too fine a line and tend to
inject too much rigidity into railroad operation when a reason-..Ie
amount of flexibility is essential to the welfare of both the
employes and the carrier. We do not think that a proper basis for
an affirmative awards exists."' (Emphasis ours)
The disputed task of digging a hole for the poet is not found to require some
degree of those skills possessed by an electrician.
The exclusivity of such a task as electrician's work has not been established
in the record nor has evidence of prior practice on the property been advanced.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
By. _ _ _
--',r7illsemarie Branch _ -AdministrAtUve Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this lath day of Javuary, 1982.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division