Fort 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMEPIT BOARD Award No. 9236
SECOND DIVISION Docket No.
9341-T
2-L8rN-SM-' 82
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee John B. haRocco when award was rendered.
{ Sheet Metal Workers' International Association
Parties to Dispute: {
{ Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That the Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company violated the controlling
agreement., particularly Role
87,
when on or about November
8, 1979,
Management assigned Machinist Robert Newton the duties of disconnecting
and removing cab heater, replacing and connecting heater hoses on Track
Mobiles Boyles Car Shops, Birmingham, Alabama.
2. That accordingly the Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company be ordered
to compensate Sheet Metal Worker W. V. Reed four
(4)
hours at the pro :rata
rate of
pay
for such violation.
Findings:
The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all
the evidence, finds that
The carrier or carriers cad 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 o! the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute
involved herein.
Pasties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.
On November
8, 1979,
the Carrier assigned s Machinist to repair a traaknobiLe
at Boyles Car Shop in Birmingham, Alabama. During the course of repairing the
trackmobile, the Machinist removed and reconnected several heater hoses and removed
and replaced the cab heater. 7he record does mat disclose precisely how much ti;se
it took the Machinist to rove and replace the cab heater sad hoses. Claimant,
a Sheet Metal Worker, alleges that a member of the sheet metal worker craft abound
have been assigned to perform the disputed work sad, as a result of the alleged
violation of Rule
87,
Claimant seeks four hours of pay at the straight time rate.
The Organization concedes that a Machinist may properly repair a tracknobile
but that, on November
8, 1979,
the Machinist performed work beyond the jurisdiction
of his craft when he disconnected and reconnected the cab heater and heater hoses.
Aeco=3ing to the Organization, Rule
87
expressly reserves the disputed work to
Sheet Metal Workers and therefore, the Carrier is absolutely prohibited from
assigning the work to a member of mother craft.
The Carrier raises several defenses. First, the Carrier vigorously asserted
on the property that there is a well entrenched past practice going back twenty
years that Machinists heave usually performed the work in dispute. Second, pursuant
Form 1
Page 2
Award No. 9236
Docket No.
93+1-T
2-L86hT-SM-' 82
to the incidental work rule, as amended, the Machinist could properly perform the
disputed work because it was a minor task which was incidental to his primary
assignment, i.e. the repair of the trackmobile. Third, the Carrier characterizes
this claim as a controversy between two competing crafts over which
craft should
perform the work. The Carrier urges this
Board
to summarily
dismiss
this claim
because the two crafts have not complied with the procedures for settling jurisdictional disputes apt forth is Appendix A of the applicable Agreement.
The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers participated
in this dispute during the handling of the claim on the property sad before this
Board. Though-the Machinists' Organization took what appears to be inconsistent
positions on the property, the record discloses that the Machinists have not
specifically asserted an exclusive right to perform work under its classification
of work rule. However, the Machinists did declare that Machinists have performed
similar work in the past on this property.
Inasmuch as the Machinist
craft is
not asserting an exclusive right to perform
the work in controversy, no real
jurisdictional
dispute exists. Therefore, the
Organization was not obligated to utilize the procedure in Appendix A as a
condition precedent to progressing this claim on the property and before this Board.
The issue becomes whether the disputed work is reserved exclusively to Sheet
Metal Workers
by rule or past practice.
Rule
87
refers to the connection end disconnection
of
pipes but is silent with
regard to cab heaters and heater hoses. Absent as express reference to the disputed
work in the classification of work rule, the Organization shoulders the burden of
demonstrating that the disputed work has been historically, customarily, traditionally
and exclusively performed by Sheet Metal Workers. Second Division Awards No.
5718
(Bitter) and No.
6145
(McGovern). After carefully perusing the evidence in the
record as well as the arguments advanced by all parties, this Board concludes that
the work involved in this dispute has, in the past been performed by both Machinists
and Sheet Metal Workers. Thus, the Organization has fallen short of its burden of
proving with competent evidence that the disputed work is exclusively reserved to
Sheet Metal Workers.
We emphasize that our decision applies only to this particular task, on this
date and on this property. Also, we need not consider whether or not the disputed
work qualifies as incidental work within the meaning of the incidental work rule
because the Organization has failed to show the disputed work belongs exclusively to
Sheet Metal Workers.
AW AR D
Claim denied.
Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
~.-~ional Railroad Adjustment Board
By
Aosemaaie Braseh - Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this
22nd day of July, 1982.
NATIONAL RAILR0M ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division