Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 11486
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 11212-T
88-2-86-2-15
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Raymond E. McAlpin when award was rendered.
(Brotherhood of Railway Carmen of the United States
( and Canada
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Burlington Northern Railroad Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
1. That the Burlington Northern Railroad Company violated the terms
of our Agreement, in particular Rule 83 of the controlling Agreement, on
January 18, 1984.
2. That accordingly, West Burlington Cayman R. E. Balzer be compensated four (4) hours pay at the straight time rate for his rate and class for
January 18, 1984.
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 Organization claimed that the Carrier assigned work belonging to
the carman's craft per Rule 83(f) of the current Agreement to the Sheet Metal
Workers Union, which states in pertinent part:
"Cayman's work shall consist of:..., doors
windows, door and window locks,..."
The Sheet Metal Workers chose to intervene in this dispute and their
Submission clearly stated in part:
"As the disputed work clearly falls within the
ambit of the Sheet Metal Workers' Classification
Work Rule, it follows that the work was not
improperly assigned."
Form 1 Award No. 11486
Page 2 Docket No. 11212-T
88-2-86-2-15
In their Submissions both Organizations state emphatically that the
work in question belongs to their respective crafts and, therefore, the Board
has been asked to decide in essence a jurisdictional dispute. Jurisdictional
disputes have been the subject of numerous Awards before this and other Divisions, and the Board has consistently held that they have no authority to
settle such jurisdictional disputes given the clear language of Rule 93. Therefore, the Board has no choice but to dismiss the claim.
A W A R D
Claim dismissed.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest: _ ~ _ _ _
'Nancy J. a -.Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 15th day of June 1988.