Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 10076
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 9689-T
2-MP-SM-184
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Robert W. McAllister when award was rendered.
( Sheet Metal Workers' International Association
Parties to Dispute:
( Missouri Pacific Railroad Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company violated the controlling agreement
particularly Rule 97, and Letter of Understanding of May 1, 1940, when they
transferred the work of removing, cleaning, and reapplying of filters
on liquid honing machine from the Sheet Metal Workers' Craft to the
Machinists' Craft, on May 28, 1980, North Little Rock, Arkansas.
2. That accordingly, the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company be ordered to
compensate Sheet Metal Worker S. V. Pruss in the amount of two hours
(2') at pro rata rate, May 28, 1980, as he was available to perform
this Sheet Metal Workers' 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 may 28, 1980, at the Carrier's North Little Rock diesel facility, machinists
were using a honing machine. This piece of machinery cleans pistons and exhaust
valves by blasting them with small glass beads at high speeds. The dirt and
dust freed are filtered through strips of cloth suspended vertically before the
exhausted air leaves the honing machine. it was determined that the filters on
the honing machine needed cleaning, and the Locomotive Foreman assigned the job
to the machinists operating the device.
The Organization protests the assignment as a violation of Rule 97 and the
May 1, 1940, Letter of Understanding prohibiting the transfer of work from one
craft to another. In support thereof, the Organization submitted four statements
from sheet metal workers attesting to the fact such work has been historically
recognized as accruing to their craft.
The Carrier contends the agreement language cited by the Organization is
silent on the specific task of removing, cleaning, and reapplication of cloth
strip filters, which are part of a honing machine. The Carrier argues that, in
the face of such silence, the Organization must show an exclusive system wide
past practice of having performed the work. Having failed to do so, the
Carrier avers the referred to letter of May 1, 1940, is meaningless because a
prerequisite in its observance is a showing work reserved to one craft was
Form 1 Award No. 10076
Page 2 Docket No. 9689-T
2-MP-SM-184
assigned to another. The Carrier also submitted four statements from machinists
and one from a locomotive foreman in support of its position that such work has
been performed by employes represented by other than the Organization.
This Board finds the work involved is not specifically reserved to the
Organization by Rule 97. Nor do we conclude from the signed statements of both
Organization employes and machinists that the work has been normally performed
by the Organization to the exclusion of all others. This is the burden, which
through countless prior awards, has been required of the Organization to sustain
its position. Failing to so find, we must deny the claim.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest:
Nancy J. `,11~ver - Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 19th day of September 1984.