F orm 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 9459
SECOND DIVISION Docket No.
9251-T
2-MP-MA-183
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee George S. Roukis 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
and
52
(a) when they arbitrarily
transferred the work of building a frame for Diesel Tractor Truck No.
1156
to the Boilermakers' Craft from the Machinist Craft at North Little
Rock, Arkansas.
2.
That accordingly, the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company be ordered to
compensate C. G. Cook, R. G. Walls, A. K. Johnson, W. A. Etier, W.
Brown, D. J. Bush, C. D. Trent, A. Brown, R. G. Stacks, E. Haney, R.
Moore, J. S. Sullivan, H. P. Wilson, G. E. McBride, H. R. Murphy,
D. R. Riggins, L. H. Hess, C. J. Zakrzeuski, T. M. Curtis, 0. W. Howell,
G. H. Gammell, W. E. Culp, C. J. Chudy, H. H. Haynie, G. A. Sampson,
V. E. Herrington, G. C. Bailey, C. E. Crone, J. W. Brodwick, J. C.
Ferguson, R. A.
Mills,
in the amount of eight
(8)
hours each at time
and one-half per day for Machinists having been denied the right to
perform Machinists' work.
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 Machinists Organization contends that Carrier violated Rule
52(a)
of
the controlling agreement when it assigned two
(2)
Boilermakers to perform work
which it claims belongs to its craft. The Boilermakers were required to build
a frame for Diesel Tractor No.
1156
which is placed in service at the Pike
Avenue Diesel Shop in Little Rock, Arkansas in order to haul traction motor and
wheel sets over public thoroughfares to the Ramp Drop Table. The Machinists
Organization argues that the work is protected by the clear language of Rule 52 (a)
and cites the holdings in Second Division Awards Nos.
6762, 7345, 7379
and
8603
et al. as confirmatory evidence that work with metals relating to machinery and
tools is machinists' work.
Form 1 Award No. 9459
Page 2 Docket No. 9251-T
2-MP-MA-'83
It avers that the Diesel Tractor Truck is properly shop machinery and
asserts that a previous on situs grievance settlement agreement in 191- disposed
of this question.
Carrier contends that similar work was performed by Boilermakers in the past
without complaint from the Machinist Organization and that Rule 52(a) does not
reserve to the Machinists the exclusive right to build all devices, tools or
machines, but instead, confers only the right to machine the metals used in
building, assembling and installing machinery. It argues that the assembling
of channel iron and heavy plate steel into steel bed for an over the road tractor
truck is not work reserved by rule or practice to the petitioning Organization,
but work assigned to the Boilermakers, pursuant to that Craft's Classification of
Work Rule 62 (a). It asserts that the Machinists have never denied that this
type of work was assigned to the Boilermakers or demonstrated that Machinists
built the framework and steel beds for wagons and automotive vehicles designed to
haul heavy locomotive and car parts from shop to shop. It avers that Second
Division Award No. 7861 involving the same Organization and Carrier is more on
point with this dispute, since it held that when Rule 52(a) does not expressly
reserve the contested work to the Machinists by clear and unambiguous language
and absence a showing that by system wide custom, practice and tradition such
work was exclusively performed by the Machinists, the petition, of judicial
necessity, must fall for want of acceptable probative evidence.
The Boilermakers' Organization, as an interested Third Party, argues that
Rule 52(a) only reserves to the Machinists' craft the machining of metals used
in work generally recognized as Machinists' work, which it contends is not the
case herein, since the disputed work involved heavy structural steel work and
steel underframes which is reserved by Agreement rule to the Boilermakers. It
asserts that the building of a frame did not involve work with shop machinery,
but with an over the road tractor truck, which is used for moving traction motors
and wheel sets over public highways.
In our review of this case, we concur with Carrier's position. The pivotal
question before us is whether an over the road diesel tractor truck can be
reasonably considered as shop machinery as that term is set forth in Rule 52 (a)
and interpreted by numerous arbitral decisions. Close analysis of this Rule does
not indicate that such equipment is included under the covered categories of
protected work activities or that the building of a frame on this vehicle
reflects the maintenance of shop machinery. The Diesel tractor truck was not used
exclusively to perform readily identifiable Machinists' work and thus cannot be
literally construed as protected shop machinery. Moreover, we find no unequivocal
Agreement language that would unmistakably reserve this work to the Machinists or
any inferential linkage among the separate listed work activities that would
persuasively support such a finding. When we examine the work practices on the
property with respect to similar work, we find no evidence that the Machinists
performed this work on a system wide long term basis, but find that the Boilermakers
performed analogous work. We have no record evidence that the Machinists ever
challenged the aforesaid work practices and the 1944 on situs grievance settlement
agreement cited by the Machinists as controlling is without judicial effect,
since the subject of that settlement is notably distinguishable from the instant
dispute. Upon the record and for the foregoing reasons, we are compelled to
deny the claim.
Form 1
Page
3
A W A R D
Claim denied.
Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
BY __
,emarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 4th day of May, 1983.
Award No. 9459
Docket No. 9251-T
2-MP-MA-'83
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division