~ _
Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ALI7USTMENT BOARD Award No. 9788
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 9494-T
2-MP-MA-'84
The Second Division consisted of the regular member°s and in
addition Referee Robert M. O'Brien when award was rendered.
( International Association
o f Machinists and
( Aerospace Workers - AFL-CIO
Parties to Dispute:
( Missouri Pacific Railroad Company
Dispute: Claim of Driployes:
1.) That the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company violated the controlling
Agreement, particularly Rules 26(a) and 52(a), when they arbitrarily
transferred Machinists' work of welding of the wear surface on two (2)
wrecker trucks to the Blacksmiths' Craft at North Li t1e Rock, Arkansas.
2.) That the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company be ordered to compensate
Machinists A.P. Zajac, G.E. Syanley, M. C. CZimer, F. F. Pruss, L. D.
McLeod, J. M. Harper, L.R. Tippen, C. E. Lawhon, J. L. Hogue, J. A.
Griese, J.A. Stephens, J.K. Bennett, A.R. Pearson, and J.B. Wirges for
eight (8) hours each at time and one-half per day for being 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 employes 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.
On November 19, 1979, Carrier brought true wrecker trucks into its Truck shop
at North Little Rock, Arkansas to be overhauled. Claimants, Machinists employed
at the shop, began overhauling the trucks by performing electric welding on the
bolster wear surface, and on the wear surface on the side o f the truck frame.
However, when the Blacksmiths' local chairman advised the Carrier that this work
had been performed by Blacksmiths for several years, Carrier ordered the
Machinists to stop working on the wrecker trucks. Between November 27 and
December 17, 1979, Blacksmiths completed the buildup of metal on the center plate
and truck rider of the wrecker trucks by a combined electric welding/annealing
process. The latter involves heating and cooling the metal to prevent
brittleness.
i
Form 1 Award No. 9788
Page 2 Docket No. 9494-T
2-MP-MA-'84
The Machinists' Organization filed the instant claim contending that this
work belonged to the machinists employed at North Little Rock, Arkansas, by both
contract and past practice. The Employes assert that Rule 52(a), the Machinists'
Classification of Work Rule, clearly and unambiguously reserves oxyacetylene,
thermit and electric welding to the Machinists' Craft. Rule 52(a) further provides
that the work of laying out, fitting, adjusting, shaping, boring, milling, grinding
and welding of metal used in building, assembling, removing and repairing trailer
and engine trucks is recognized as Machinists' work. The Employes assert that
when the Carrier arbitrarily transferred this work to the Blacksmiths' Craft it
thereby violated Rule 52(a) and Rule 26(a) which reserved Machinists' work to
none but mechanics or apprentices. The Employes submit that on this property the
building up of wear surface on wrecker truck frames has been performed by Machinists
as far back as 1953.
Clearly, this claim involves a jurisdictional dispute between two crafts on
this property - the Machinists and the Blacksmiths. Both crafts maintain that
the work in dispute is reserved to them by virtue of their respective Classification
of Work Rules.
Our reading of those Rules- 52(a) of the Machinists' Agreement and 88 of the
Blacksmiths' Agreement - compels us to conclude that neither contractual provision
clearly and explicitly reserves this work to either craft. Yet, in our judgment
the Blacksmiths have a better claim to this work by virtue of Rule 88 which
grants them the right to perform
ff
...welding,...heating, shaping and bending of
metal
...".
While Rule 52(a) reserves to Machinists the right to remove, repair
and apply trailer and engine trucks and parts, Rule 52(a) does not specifically
grant them the right to perform this work on wrecker trucks.
In the light of the ambiguity in both Rule 52(a) and Rule 88, it is appropriate
to consider the past practice, if any, that has evolved on this property regarding
assignment of the work in question. Although the Machinists and Blacksmiths both
contend that their members have always performed this work, the weight of the
evidence convinces this Division that in the past Blacksmiths have traditionally
been assigned the work of building up warn parts on equipment similar to wrecker
trucks by welding and annealing the new metal to the old metal. In our judgment,
the machinists have not persuasively refuted this practice. Thus, even if this
work was not reserved to Blacksmiths by their Classification of Work Rule, it was
most assuredly reserved to them by the past practice on this property. The work
was simply erroneously assigned to Machinists for one day.
Inasmuch as the Employes have failed to establish that the buildup of the
worn parts of the two wrecker trucks by welding and annealing was exclusively
reserved to Machinists either by Rule 52(a) and Rule 26, or by the past practice
on this property, the instant claim submitted by the Employes must be denied.
Form 1 Award No. 9788
Page 3 Docket No. 9494--T
2-MP-MA-'84
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ALl7USTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest · ,
J. Dever
ExecutiA Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 29th day of February, 1984