Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 10751
SECOND DIVISION Docket No: :10427-T
2 AT&SF SM-'86
The Second Division-consisted .of the regular members and
in
addition Referee Hyman..Gohen.when award was rendered.
( Sheet: Metal Workers' International Association
Parties to Dispute:
( The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1) That the Atchison,. Topeka.and Santa Fe Railway Company violated the
Controlling Agreement.-particularly Rule
82
when they assigned
Carmen and Labors (sic) the task of assembling 20 and 24 gauge
sheet metal lockers at Car Department Locker Room, Kansas City,
Kansas on dates of April.11, l982 and continuing until June 11,
1982.
2) That accordingly, the Atchison.;. Topeka and Santa Fe Railway be
ordered to compensate Sheet Metal Worker,-.R..-C. Carlson and thirtyseven (37) additional Sheet Metal Worker.Claimants
in,
the-amoun.t of
all monetary losses .incurted by the .claimants between the dates:of
April 11, 1982 and June-12,-1982, aceount-Carmen and.Labors.(sic)
employed by the Atchison, Topeka and.Santa.Fe Railway Company,
performing the task of assembling of
sheet
metal lockers.
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.
The facts giving rise to the instant claim are
,in
dispute. The Organization states that on April 11, 1982 through June 11,.19$2,, the Carrier
assigned Carmen and Laborers the task of assembling lockers at the-Cairier.'s
Argentine Shop, in Kansas City, Kansas. In filing its claim, the Organi=
zation contends that such work.rightfully belongs. to the
Claimants
(Sheet
Metal Workers). However, the Carrier states. that the locker.assembly'work in
question was performed by Carmen on April 15,.16, 23 and.24, 1982; furthermore, "one man" performed eight (8) hours of work.assembling the lockets on
each of these for a total of 32 hours.
Page Z < ';~'
Award No. 10751
Docket No. 10427-T
2-AT&SF-SM-'86
insupport of-its claim, the,,-prgani-W_ion .rt-3ies Upon Rule 82 of the
contfo4ling Agreep~t` whoh.,grovio!~,s_ as, ~g~7lowst_
"Sheet' metal worker~w-' W®rk
shall con:~. s'tr
of` tinning,
coppersm.zthing and- pipefx-ting in._
shops;
..yards,
buildings
and pier passenger:... coaches, end engines of all
_kind$';.the
building;
ereetAn
g,.assemblingj, installing,
-:dismantling for repairs and maintaining parts made
of, sh,eet. copper, :brass, ;tiny -.zinc,, wkitowriretal, lead,
black, planished, pick4ed
:end
galaan±2ed:
iron
of 10
gauge end lighter, including brazing,: soldering, tinning,
leading, 'and babbitting,
the,bemr3fng,
`fUtfi.rig, cutting,
threading,-
brazing,
connecting . ofea-ir; 'mater, gas, oil,
and steampipes.; pouring ..of.:brass;`,~oxyacefylene, thermit
_and e1pctr~c
~weldin
g on;.Work generally recognized as
sheet metal workers' work; and all other; work generally
recognized as,.,_$l~e_~e:tmeta~ markets' work.
An examination of 1R~-u1.e 5:~ di.spl-oses thaf-vda does-not specifically
proaic3et=t~iat
the.
talk ofJ,assemblilag~l.p~vkets is withinAthe exclusive purview
of workbelonging to Sheet Metal.Workers. -Ac&.ardfngly, as this Board has
consistently-held, the burden is on the organization to prove by competent
evidence that
the,.
work pit
exclusvie~ly
c-daima. ha's=.been exclusively reserved to
the Sheet-ketal Workers_system-wide -- "historically, traditionally, and
customariZv". - See, for...example;. Second Division ,Awards Nos. 5525 and 5921.
The record .indicates that_SheetyMetal Workers-have assembled lockers at
the Carr~,er'q*, Argentine facility, -at ,Kansas-;Cityy -Kansas. However, no proof
was presented by' ,the.Organizatipn to-,indicate -a-showing of "system-wide
excfus3vity".~ Second Division Award No. 5525.
Further .support for ..the ,positis~n.that -1192 -practice on the property must
be viewed from a system-wide perspective, the final paragraph of Article II
of the September 25, 196,4-Agreementprovides, in relevant part, as follows:
"The work set forth in this classification of work
rules of the crafts parties to this agreement will not
be contracted except ***."
This paragraph was amended on December 4, 1978 to read, in relevant
part, as. follows.: . ~.. s
. ; ' _ s .,
"The work setfarth~'in~the classification of work rules
of the crafts parties to the Agreement `and all of the
work historically performed and,yer~allyEognized
as work of the crafts purstzaqt
sik
~.~..~sification
of work rules will not be~_con ra~,-t&tl `-ekcept ***. In
determining. whether work
is
histor~cally performed and
generally recdgrriz'ed t3irhin""the"meaiiing of this Article,
the practices at the facility involved will govern."
Form 1
Page 3
Award No. 10751
Docket No., 1Q427-T
2-AT&SF-SM-.'86.
It may very well be that the amendment to the subcontracting rule has no
direct effect on the language of Rule 82. However, it may, be useful in.
understanding the intent of the part~i4es on tH& meaning to be
given
tO
Rule,._;.
.,
82. In this connection, had the 'parties cdhidered''the phrase work that
is_
"historically performed and generally recognized" as belonging to.the craft,
which is contained in Rule.82 to .be applicable
oh=a
location,-by=Zocation
basis the parties would simply have: repeated-'take language in~Ru1~ 82 rather
than include specific language in the'-
DeceMbei 4, 198
amendittent
" to
the effect
that the contracting rule
is:applicable:on-`a=location-by=location basis
.
There is another facto
_r, that must -be considered. - The
preaffi$Ie
to the
September
1, 1974
Agreement pr..ovides as follow.4: ''--
"This Agreement~sha31,apply to eriiployes 'of`-this Carrier
who perform work,outlined herein.;:: in the Maintenance OfEquipment Department, Newton Rail Mill arid Engineering ,
Department under jurisdiction of the OpeiatioWDepartmen~. "
The organization acknowledges -that the work cla3ined, took place in the
Car Department Locker Room. Since the work was not performed in the ._
Departments specifically mentioned in the preamble, of the effective. Agreemejist,,,,,
the work falls outside the scope
of
the AgreiLmentupon which the'`insfant
claim is based. Second Division Awards Nos.
2695..a#2d X625..
Furthermore, the Carrier had disposed of =a~claim
.by the Organization
by,
paying
"40
hours * * * at the established rate" to'a Sheet Metal worker
because a Carman "allegedly performed sheet ineta_;l., work between' October
17
thru
21,
1966."
The documentary evidence concerning .this work in
1966does
not
disclose that the claim was for "assembling lockers". Moreover,"the-claim
was disposed of "without prejudice.to the.position of either party".;^- aAccordngly,
.the settlement of this claim does not support
the
Orgahization's
position
irk
the instant dispute. -
In light of the aforementioned considerati.ans., the instant claim is
denied.
rs
A W A R D
Claim denied.
Attest:
Nancy J.~e~ - Execut,,ivew.Seereta.ry"
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By
Order of Second Division _,
Dated at Chicago, I1.linois ;this ` 26th
,day pf February, 3.986.