Form I NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 9088
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 8850-T
2-B&O-EW-'82
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Carlton R. Sickles when award was rendered.
( International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
Parties to Dispute:
( Baltimore and Ohio Railway Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company violated the current
agreements, particularly Rule 12 5 of the Shop Crafts Agreement when
they assigned Machinists to perform a 30 day FRA Inspection on Unit
6956 at New Castle, Pennsylvania, and sign FRA Form F 61$0-49. The
electrical work included items
6
through
9,
electrical aDntrol and
power equipment and control and power circuits.
2. That accordingly the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company be ordered to
additionally compensate Electrician H. H. Riley in the amount of two
(2) hours and forty (40) minutes at the time and one-half rate for
November 11,
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 aver the dispute
involved herein.
Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.
Claimant alleges that it is a violation of the Agreement between the carrier
and the organization for any craft other than electrician to perform the thirtyday FRA Inspection, in particular Items 6 through 9 on Form F-6180-49. Claimant
further alleges that to allow anyone but an electrician to perform this
inspection is in violation of Federal law.
Rule 125 of the Shop Crafts Agreement provides that, among other functions,
the electrician's work shall include "inspecting" of various electrical devices.
The claimant contends that this clear language is also supported by the
past practice of using electricians to perform this thirty-day inspection.
The carrier contends that the Federal law does not require that a specific
classification of employe perform the thirty-day inspection as required. Since
we find no support for the requirement other than the allegation of the claimant,
we accept the Carrier's contention in this regird,
Form 1 Award No.
9088
Page 2 Docket No. 8850-T
2-B&O-EW-'82
The carrier further contends that there is a distinction between the mere
visual inspection of the items required in the thirty-day inspection as compared
with the testing and maintaining of these pieces of equipment. Carrier contends
that it has always and continues to recognize that any inspection in the form of
testing and any work in connection with the maintenance of this equipment is
clearly the electrician's work and will continue to be assigned to the electrician,
but that because at one time the procedure was to do the maintenance work in
connection with and at the same time as the thirty-day inspection, that this
does not preclude it from separating out the maintenance work from the thirtyday inspection. We accept the proposition that the carrier may change its
procedures as to the frequency of the maintenance of its equipment, barring no
contractual requirement to the contrary, which apparently is the case here.
This narrows the issue to the question as to whether visual inspection alone is
the exclusive work of electricians. This is further supported by the fact that
although the grievance refers to the testing of the various equipment when this
was contested by the carrier, it was not refuted by the claimant. We accept the
carrier's position that, in the event there is to be testing as well as visual
inspection or maintenance in connection with such inspection, this work would
be clearly the work of the electrician and that it proposed to so perform in
the future.
Accepting then that we are simply talking about the visual inspection of
certain equipment, then the question is whether the word "inspecting" in the
scope rule can or has been in any way limited by the action of the parties which
would be controlling in this instance. On its face, there is no limitation of _
the word "inspecting" in the Agreement; however, the organization has put forth
the argument that there is no difference between the daily visual inspection of
the equipment and the thirty-day inspection required by the law, merely that
a form has to be filled out in connection with the latter. The claimant has
indicated that the thirty-day inspection cannot be put in the same category
as the daily inspection; however, it is not clearly apparent as to why one
is any different than the other. If there is a daily visual inspection
performed of the designated equipment by other than electricians and this is
not a violation of the Agreement, then it is difficult to determine why the
thirty-day visual inspection would be covered by the Agreement.
The claimant's general support for his proposition is the historical use
of electricians to perform this visual inspection function. The supporting
evidence is incomplete in that the carrier has refuted the allegations made by
the claimant, the support for the claimant's position has been limited to a few
locations, and one of the affidavits clearly indicates that it is not unusual
for other than electricians to perform a visual thirty-day inspection.
Upon review of all arguments of the parties, we hold that the claimant has
not established that the work of inspecting in compliance with the thirty-day
inspection requirement by Federal law is other than visual inspection or is
substantially different from daily inspection which it concedes is not a
violation of the agreement.
low
Form 1
Page
3
Claim denied.
Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
Award No. 9088
Docket No. 8850-T
2-B&O-EW-'82
A W A R D
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
emarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 19th day of May, 1982.
*400