F orm 1
Parties to Dispute:
Dispute: Claim of Employes :
2.
Findings
NATIDNAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD A
SECOND DIVISION Doc
2-
An
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and
addition Referee George S. Roukis when award was rendere
International Brotherhood of Electrical Woe
Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific R
That the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railro
violated the current agreement when Carman Robert Buschm
Louis Switalski were assigned to perform electrical work
machines in the Freight Car Shop (CD-50) in Milwaukee Sh
claimed should
have been properly assigned to Electricia
Francisco, Mark Mundt, Terrance S. Takacs, Phillip Rinke
and Randall Van Dusen.
That the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railro
ordered to compensate the above referred to Electrical W
following dates during which the Chicago, Milwaukee, St.
Pacific Railroad Company violated the Agreement at eight
day at the prevailing rate at time and one half.
Ervin Francisco, December 18, 19, 20, 21, 1978
Mark Mundt, December 22, 26, 27, 28,
1978
Terrance S. Takacs, December 29, 1978/January 2, 3, 4, 1~
Phillip Rinke, January
5, 8, 9,
11, 1979
Patrick Fortier, January 12,
15, 16,
17, 1979
Randall Van Dusen, January 13, 19, 22, 23, 1979
The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole r.
the evidence, finds that:
The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved
are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the Rai;
as approved June 21,
193+.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over tl
involved herein.
Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing
The pivotal questiar: in this dispute is whether the connecti.-1
lead to a welding machine is work exclusively reserved to the elec
On the dates cited in Petitioners' Claim, Carrier assigned a Car...d.
Blacksmith to hook
up
the electrical leads to
the 13 new welding
pirchastd for use in Carrier's Freight Car Shop. Petitiai ers argu
No. 9458
t No.
9176-11
t P&P-EW-'
H3
in
ailroad Company
d' Co-:panv
n and Blacksmith
on welding
ps; the work
s Ervin
Patrick Fortier,
d Company be
rkers for the
Paul and
(8) hours per
X79
cord and all
this dispute
way labor Act
de dispute
Ithereor..
of a welding
rical workers.
and a
chines
that
Form 1 Award No. 9458
Page 2 Docket No.
9176-T
2-CMSutP&P-EW-'83
assigning other employes to perform this work violated Rule 71 of the
Electrician's controlling agreement, which provides in part, that Electrician's
work shall include electrical wiring, maintaining, repairing, rebuilding,
inspecting and installing electrical welding machines. Petitioners assert that
the Blacksmiths and Carmen's craft classification of work rules do not refer to
the maintenance or repair of electrical welding machines and aver that Rule
33
of
the Safety Rules (Form
2983)
permits only qualified employes to perform work on
electrical conductors and apparatus of any kind.
Carrier contends that the Electrical Workers Agreement was not violated since
the work
performed by
the carman and the blacksmith merely amounted to connecting
a male lug with a threaded end into a female lug cable located on the machine. It
asserts that this work was no different than connecting a garden hose to a water
faucet and argues that it did not involve any of the work classification duties
delineated in Rule
71. _
The Caxznens' Organization as an interested third party, apprised the Board
that this work did not involve the repairing, modifying, building
or
dismantling of
electrical machinery, which it readily conceded- belonged to the Electricians'
craft, but work which was routinely performed by Carmen.- -
In our review of this case, we concur with Carrier`s position. The-work
performed on the claimed dates was not work which could be plainly identified
as maintaining, repairing, rebuilding, inspecting and installing electrical welding
machinery, since by definition these work assignments involve technical skills
perceptively distinguishable from the perfunctory task of connecting a welding
lead to a welding machine. In the absence of a past practice,
which
unmistakably
shows that this type of work was consistently performed by' the electricians on a
system wide basis or clear and unambiguous contract language which reserves such
work to them, we must, of judicial necessity, deny the claim.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
By . ~,..
emarie Brasch-Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 4th day of May, 1983.
Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 9458
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 9176-T
2-CMSt P&P-EW-'
83
The Second Division cazsisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee George S. Roukis when award was rendered.
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
Parties to Dispute:
( Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company
violated the current agreement when Carman Robert Buschman and Blacksmith
Louis Switalski were assigned to perform electrical work on welding
machines in the Freight Car Shop (CD-50) in Milwaukee Shops; the work
claimed should have been properly assigned to Electricians Ervin
Francisco, Mark Mundt, Terrance S. Takacs, Phillip Rinke, Patrick Fortier,
and Randall Van Dusen.
2. That the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company be
ordered to compensate the above referred to Electrical Workers for the
following dates during which the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and
Pacific Railroad Company violated the Agreement at eight
(8)
hours per
day at the prevailing rate at time and one half.
Ervin Francisco, December
18,
19, 20, 21, 1978
Mark Mundt, December 22, 26, 27,
28,
1978
Terrance S. Takacs, December 29, 1978/January 2,
3,
4, 1979
Phillip
Rinke, January
5, 8,
9, 11, 1979
Patrick Fortier, January 12, 15, 16, 17,
1979
'° Randall Van Dusen, January
18, 19,
22, 23,
1979
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 waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.
The pivotal question in this dispute is whether the connecting of a welding
lead to a welding machine is work exclusively reserved to the electrical workers.
On the dates cited in Petitioners' Claim, Carrier assigned a Carman and a
Blacksmith to hook
up
the electrical leads to the 13 new welding machines
purchased for use in Carrier's Freight Car Shop. Petitioiers argue that
rr~
Form 1 Award No. 9458
Page 2 Docket No.
9176-T
2-CMStP&P-EW-'83
assigning other employes to.pe.rform this work violated Rule 71 of the
Electrician's controlling agreement, which provides in part, that Electrician's
work shall incli.ide electrical wiring, maintaining, repairing, rebuilding,
inspecting and installing electrical welding machines. Petitioners assert that
the Blacksmiths and Carmen's craft classification of work rules do not refer to
the maintenance or repair of electrical welding machines and aver that Rule
33
of
the Safety Rules (Form
2983)
permits only qualified employes to perform work on
electrical conductors and apparatus of any kind.
Carrier contends that the Electrical Workers Agreement was not violated since
the work performed by the carman and the blacksmith merely amounted to connecting
a male lug with a threaded end into a female lug cable located on the machine. It
asserts that this work was no different than connecting a garden hose to a water
faucet and argues that it did not involve any of the work classification duties
delineated in Rule 71. _
The Carmens' Organization as an interested third party, apprised the Board
that this work did not involve the repairing, modifying, building or dismantling of
electrical machinery, which it readily conceded belonged to the Electricians'
craft, but work which was routinely performed by Carmen.
In our review of this case, we concur with Carrier's position. The work
perfo:~cmed on the claimed dates was not work which could be plainly identified
-as maintaining, repairing, rebuilding, inspecting and installing electrical welding
cvachinevy, since by definition these work assignments involve technical skills
perceptively distinguishable from the perfunctory task of connecting a-welding
lead to zi welding machine. In the absence of a past practice,
which
unmistakably,
shows that this type of work was consistently performed by the electricians on a
system wide basis or clear and unambiguous contract language which reserves such
work to them, we must, of judicial necessity, deny the claim.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
By
, 7,
~q~emarie Brasch-Administrative Assistant
Dated, at Chicago, Illinois,-this 4th day of May, 1983.
s