Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 11150
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 10886-T
2-SSR-F&O-'87
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Mart;y E. Zusman when award was rendered.
(International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers
Parties to Dispute:
(Seaboard System Railroad
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That under the current and controlling agreement employees other
than Laborers were improperly used to perform the work of operating the fork
lift to pick up and deliver material and equipment, dump trash into the dumpsters, wash down floors under the ramps and operate the mechanical sweeper to
clean the floor in the engine hours and locanotive shop at Seaboard System
Railroad, Uceta Shops, Tampa, Florida.
2. That accordingly, the Carrier be ordered to compensate Laborers'
time and one-half rate of pay for the amount as described on dates below: E.
L. Williams, seventeen (17) hours and forty (40) minutes for December 9, 13,
and 16, 1983, and January 17, 1984. G. J. Brown, fourteen (14) hours and
forty (40) minutes for December 9, and 16, 1983 and January 7, 1984. E. I.
Everett, four (4) hours for January 7, 1984. K. E. Ragan, twenty-four (24)
hours for December 13, 15 and 16, 1983. M. E. Smart for eight (8) hours for
December 8, 13 and 14, 1983.
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.
Claim of the organization alleges that work contractually reserved to
the Fireman and Oilers Craft was assigned to other Crafts in violation of the
Agreement. The Organization maintains that by Supplemental Agreement (signed
July 21, 1971, Paragraph C, Part 1), under the Scope Rule and by history, and
past practice the operation of fork lifts, movement of materials, dumping of
trash containers, driving of sweepers and cleaning of areas as made a part of
the Claims herein, and reserved to their Craft. The organization maintains
that violations occurred when Carrier required others to perform their work.
Form 1 Award No. 11150
Page 2 Docket No. 10886-T Vow
2-SSR-F&O-'87
The Carrier argues that the Supplemental Agreement explicitly states
(Section 6) that it "is not to be construed as a scope rule or classification
of work rule." It further argues that the Scope Rule of the Agreement is a
general rule which only lists classes of employees and their duties. It
denies that such work has been assigned or reserved historically or by past
practice to those employees covered under the Scope of the Fireman and Oilers
Agreement. It specifically states that "systemwide on this property, employees of every craft and class have performed these tasks in the regular performance of their duties."
In the case at bar, this Board is guided by the long held principle
that the weight of the evidence to substantiate the Claim rests in these cases
with the organization as moving party (Third Division Awards 19506, 13691).
In the instant case, the work performed in each of the Claims has not been
shown to be reserved to the Fireman and Oilers. We have carefully read the
Supplemental Agreement and the Scope Rule. Neither reserve the disputed work
to that Craft. Moreover, we have searched the record for probative evidence
that by history and past practice such work as herein disputed has been exclusively assigned and performed. The evidence of record leads to the opposite
conclusion, namely, that such work has been performed by numerous other Crafts
in the performance of their duties within their work areas. The evidentiary
data as developed by the organization on property does not establish in any of
the above Claims that the Agreement has been violated. The burden of proof is
on the moving party and as such, this Board denies the Claim since the burden
has not been met here.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT' BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attes
Nancy
XD
-Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 11th day of February 1987.