Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No.
8967
SECOND
DIVISION Docket No.
8384-T
2-MP-EW-'82
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee John B. LaRocco when award was rendered.
( International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
Parties to Dispute:
( Missouri Pacific Railroad Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company violated Rules
25 (a), (b)
and (c) , 26 (a) and (b) , 106, and 107 (a) of the June
1, 1960
control J,":
s~
agreement; Rule 100 of the Uniform Code of Safety Rules effective
January
1, 1971
when Car Foreman Gwinn assigned himself to perform
electricians'-work Thursday, February
2, 1978,
thus, depriving
Electrician L. N. Hill of his contractual rights under the provisions
of the Agreement at Houston, Texas.
2. That, accordingly, the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company be ordered to
compensate Electrician L. N. Hill four hours (4') at the existing rate
for electricians
(7.66
per hour) for February
2, 1978.
F ind in s
The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all
the evidence, finds that:
The carrier or carrier: 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.
Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.
Claimant, an Electrician, seeks four hours compensation arising out of the
Carrier's alleged violation of Rules
25, 26, 106
and 107 of the controlling
agreement. On February
2, 1978
at Settegast Yard, the Car Foreman hooked
battery jumper cables from the battery of a forklift to the battery of a Car
Department
pickup truck
to start the
pickup's
.engine. The
pickup
truck is
operated by a Carman. The Organization maintains that the work consisting of
jump starting the pickup is exclusively reserved to the electrical craft by
both Rule 107(a) and past practice.
We have recently considered this almost identical issue between these same
parties in Second Division Award No.
8969,. As we concluded in that case,
the classification of work rule (Rule
107(a))
does not expressly cover this particular
task and there is insufficient evidence of past practice to support a finding of
exclusivity on this property. An examination of the historical practice showed
that a number of crafts had performed the work.
'ri13-n
I
r
ties -~
Award No.
8967
Docket No.
8384-T
2-MP-EW-'82
This case does present one factual difference. In Award No.
8969,
the
Foreman had instructed a Laborer to perform the work but, in the instant case, the
car Foreman himself performed the work. The organization argues that, by
connecting the jumper cables, the Foreman went beyond his customary supervisory
duties of instructing and directing the work force. However, even if the Foreman
should have assigned the work to an employe in one of the crafts, there is still
no showing that electrical workers, to the exclusion of all others, are
entitled to perform the disputed work. See Second Division Award No.
5177
(Harwood). Thus, Claimant did not have an absolute right to perform this
particular task on this property.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
~semarie Brasch - ministrative Assistant
' /r
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 10th day of March,
1982.