Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No.
9003
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 8473-T
2-MP-MA-'82
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee George E. Larney when award was rendered.
( International Association of Machinists and
Parties to Dispute: ( Aerospace Workers
(
( Missouri Pacific Railroad Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company Violated the controlling
Agreement, particularly Rules 26(a) and 52(a), when they arbitrarily
assigned Blacksmiths to build two (2) Engine lifters.
2. That, accordingly, the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company be ordered to
compensate Machinist H. H. Haustein and Machinist Carl Carpenter in the
amount of One hundred twenty-eight hours (128) each, punitive rate of
pay because Blacksmiths were assigned to build two (2) engine lifters
on October 17, 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 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 were given due notice of hearing thereon.
Complainant Organization, the Machinists, alleges Carrier improperly assigned
work belonging to employees of its Craft to employees of the Blacksmith Craft.
The disputed work involved the building of two (2) engine lifters conceded by
all parties at interest to be a tool specifically used to lift engines out of
and put back into locomotives. The work commenced on October 14, 1977 and was
completed on November 22, 1977. The two (2) engine lifters were built in the
Blacksmith Shop at Carrier's Pike Avenue facility located in North Little Rock,
Arkansas.
Complainant Organization asserts Blacksmiths performed the following
specific job duties in building the engine lifters:
"A special grade of 1020 HRS heavy sheet iron was ordered
for building the lifters.
The laying out of all the different component parts for the
engine lifter to be cut out of the thick sheet iron were
0
Form 1 Award No.
9003
Page 2 Docket No.
8473-T
2-MP-MA-'82
laid out and cut by the Blacksmith, such as ten (10) pieces
of iron for the lifting grabs in various and different sizes,
two (2) lifting beam adapters, 1 3/4" x
116"
with outside
radius of 23 7/32 " and inside radius of 13 1/2", two (2)
lifting beam slings 2" x 17" x
58"
with two
(2)
raised holes,
one large hook hole with a
3"
radius, eight pieces of
linkage 1" x
6"
x 10 1/2" with two holes, all above mentioned
was then hand ground to remove sharp edges.
The Blacksmith also fabracated (sic) two
(2)
lifting beams by
welding and pining (sic) together the 2" x
18"
x 179"
length
of iron with two (2) length of channel iron 3 1/2" x 8" x
21'x+"
long to support the beam, one on either side of the main
lifting beam to prevent bending, three holes were drilled
thru the beam and the two pieces of channel iron so to insert
pins and were welded on both sides to hold the channel and
beam together. The beam was then hand ground and laid out
by the Blacksmith for the Machinist Helper in the Blacksmith
shop to drill eighteen
(18)
holes in the beam.
The Blacksmith then cut twenty four
(24)
1/8"
x 4" round
plates and welded to both sides of the holes so as to give
a raised hole effect, the Blacksmith also laid out four (4)
holes in the lifting sling and two
(2)
holes in the lifter
beam adaptor for the Machinist Helper to drill."
Complainant Organization argues these job functions are reserved to
employees of its Craft based on Rules
26(x), 51
and
52(x),
the latter being its
Classification of Work Rule, contained in the Controlling Agreement bearing
effective date of June
1, 1960.
These Rules read as follows:
Rule
26(x)
provides in pertinent part:
"None but mechanics or apprentices regularly employed as such
shall do mechanic's work as per special rules of each Craft,
except foreman at points where no mechanics are employed."
Rule
51
captioned "MACHINISTS QUALIFICATIONS" provides as follows:
"Any man who has served an apprenticeship or has had four
years' experience at the machinists' trade, and who,
by his skill and experience, is qualified and capable of
laying out, and fitting together the metal parts of any
machine or locomotive, with or without drawings, and
competent to do either sizing, shaping, turning, boring,
planing, grinding, finishing or adjusting the metal parts
of any machine or locomotive whatsoever within a reasonable
length of time may qualify as a machinist."
Form I Award No.
9003
Page
3
Docket No.
8473-T
2-MP-MA-'82
Rule 52 of the controlling Agreement reads in pertinent part:
"MACHINISTS CIASSIFICATION OF WORK: RUIE 52(a). Machinists'
work including regular and helper apprentices, shall consist
of lain out, fitting, adjusting, shaping, boring, slotting,
milling, and grinding of metals used in building, assembling,
maintaining, dismantling, See Note A) and installing machinery,
locomotives and engines (operated by steam or other power),
engine inspecting pumps, engine jacks, cranes, hoists, elevators,
pneumatic and hydraulic tools and machinery, shafting and other
shop machinery, ratchet and other skilled drilling and reaming
except on drill presses (See Note B), tool and die making,
tool grinding, axle truing, axle wheel, and tire turning and
boring, air equipment, lubricator and injector work, removing,
replacing, grinding bloting, and breaking of all joints on
exhaust pipes and super-heaters; oxyacetylene, thermit and
and electric welding on work generally recognized as Machinists'
work; the operation of all machines used in such work; machine
and link grinding and passenger motor cars; removing, repairing,
and applying trailer and engine trucks and parts thereof; cab
stands or sheets, waste sheets, runningboard brackets, headlight
brackets, hand rail brackets, smoke stack saddles, smoke stacks,
sand boxes and done castings, locomotive spring and spring rigging
work, driver brake and brake rigging (See Note C), and. all other
work generally recognized as Machinists' work. Machinist may
connect and disconnect any wiring, coupling, or pipe
connections necessary to make or repair machinery or equipment."
(Emphasis added)
Complainant Organization argues that the engine lifter is a tool of
the Machinists' trade falling under the languge of its scope of work as set
forth in Rule 52(a), specifically that which relates to tool and die making and
tool grinding. Further, Complainant Organization asserts Rule 52(a) does not
contain any express qualification or limitations on the size or gauge of metal
which would have prevented Carrier from making the subject work assignment too
employees of its Craft.
Carrier defends its assignment of the subject work to employees of the
Blacksmith Craft on the basis of two arguments; (a) Carrier asserts it was
necessary that all of the accessories and the lifting beams themselves be heat
treated, to wit:
"The lifting beam required stress relieve (sic) for one
hour in the furnace at' 1100 degrees - 1200 degrees and
cooled in furnace to 400 degrees. The lifting grabs and
pins were heat treated, quenched in oil and tempered.
Other parts were annealed after burning and rough shaped
prior to machining.";
and (b) on two previous occasions, one in 1954 and the other in 1968, engine
lifters of the very same kind were built at its facility in North Little Rock,
Form 1 Award No.
9003
Page
4
Docket No.
8473-T
2-MP-MA-'82
and the assignment of work among the two crafts of Machinists and Blacksmiths
was the same as that made involving the subject work. Carrier maintains that
in neither
1954
nor
1968,
did the Machinists file any claim contesting the work
assignment given to either employees of its Craft or that given to employees
of the Blacksmith Craft in connection with the building of these engine lifters.
In not advancing any claim in past years, Carrier argues, the machinists'
Organization has slept on its rights, if any, to this work, and that the previous
two times this same work has been performed now constitutes a past practice
acting as a bar against the machinists in claiming the disputed work. As an
affirmative defense, Carrier argues that in view of the need to heat treat and
temper, then work heat treated and tempered metal parts of the engine lifter,
it was decided that Rule
88
of the Controlling Agreement which is the Blacksmiths'
scope of work rule, as well as past practice, required assignment of the disputed
work to Blacksmiths. In support c&-this Utter argument, Carrier cites Rule
88
in relevant part as follows:
"Blacksmiths' work, including regular and helper apprentices,
shall consist of welding, forging, heating, shaping, and
bending of metal; tool dressing and tempering ... oxyacetylene, thermit and electric welding on work generally
recognized as blacksmiths' work, and all other work generally
recognized as blacksmiths' work."
Carrier argues that because of its Classification of Work, it is Blacksmiths
which are most familiar with heat treating heavy metals and working with such
heat treated metals. Therefore, Csixrier maintains it was appropriate to make
the subject assignment to Blacksmiths rather than machinists because the disputed
work involved extensive heat treating.
Complainant Organization refutes Carrier's assertion that engine lifters
were built at Carrier ',s North Little Rock, Arkansas facility in either
1954
or
in
1968,
stating it has no knowledge of any such work having taken place or
been assigned at either time.
In response, Carrier notes engine lifters are very big in size and it could
not have built such a device in secret in either
1954
or
1968.
The Blacksmith Organization adds that it has been the practice of Carrier
at the North Little Rock facility to have Blacksmiths make tools where heating,
tempering, forging and welding is necessary for the manufacture of the tools.
In our endeavor to make a determination as to which craft employees are
entitled to the disputed work, we have found in our review of the case the
following Second Division Award
6335
to be particularly instructive. In relevant
part Award
6335
states:
"Work classification rules typically define the scope of a
craft's jurisdiction in terms of the skilled functions
performed and the equipment on which these functions are
performed. For work to fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of a craft, it must be included in the expressly
Form 1
Page
5
Award No.
9003
Docket No.
8473-T
2-MP-MA-'82
described functions and equipment allocated to the
craft."
We are persuaded that given this rationale matched against the specific job
duties performed by Blacksmiths as set forth above, that the Carrier did, to some
extent and degree misassign the disputed work. We however, are unable from the
evidence before us, to assess the extent this work was improperly assigned. It
appears from the record that since the work in question occurs so infrequently
(three times over 23 years), that the appropriate remedy would be to caution
Carrier that far the next time this work is to be performed to be more accurate
in the assignment of this work.
Finally, we find we must deny the monetary portion of this claim in its
entirety as the uncontroverted record reflects that both Claimants were working
their regular assignments at all times material to the time period within which
the disputed work occurred.
A W A R D
Claim sustained as per Findings.
Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
aBy
..
osemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 24th day of March, 1982
NATIONAL RAIIROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division