Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 11658
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 11421-T
89-2-87-2-62
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Marty E. Zusman when award was rendered.
(International Association of Machinists and
( Aerospace Workers
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(CSX Transportation, Inc. (The Baltimore and Ohio
( Railroad Company)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
1. That the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company violated the current
Agreement, especially Rule 57 Shop Crafts Agreement, when they wrongfully
assigned Machinists' work to the Boilermakers, work of building a table of
hydraulic and pneumatic tools and machinery to perform certain work accruing
to the Machinists' Craft.
2. That the Carrier immediately remove the hydraulic and pneumatic
table from the Boilermakers Shop and place that table in the Machine Shop or
Truck Shop under the jurisdiction of the Machinists who have the contractual
right to operate machinery in accordance with Rule 57 of the Controlling Agreement.
3. The Carrier compensate Machinists K. L. Stutler and H. E. Litters
eight (8) hours each at the pro-rata rate of pay beginning November 12, 1984
and continuing for as long as the violation is in force, on account of the
Carrier violating the Controlling Agreement, especially Rule 57, when the Carrier assigned Boilermakers in the building of a pneumatic and hydraulic table
at the Carrier's Locomotive Shop, Cumberland, Maryland.
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 Claim at bar developed after Carrier utilized Boilermakers on
November 12, 1984 in building a pneumatic and hydraulic table. The Organization alleged a violatio:i of Rule 57 (Classification of Work) which it argued
Form 1 Award No. 11658
Page 2 Docket No. 11421-T
89-2-87-2-62
secured the building and operating of machinery to Machinists. By letter of
r
January 2, 1985 it further requested that the table be removed from the Boiler
maker Shop and place it in the Machine Shop or Truck Shop under the jurisdic
tion of the Machinists.
The Carrier denied the Claim arguing that the job of building the
table was directly assigned along craft lines. It noted that Boilermakers
were using the braking machine in the regular performance of their work as
they had historically done. By letter of March 15, 1985, the Carrier's
highest appeals officer refused the Claim on relocating the machine. In its
denial, the Carrier noted that the Organization failed to handle the Claim
under the jurisdictional disputes procedures in effect on the property.
The Boilermakers filed a Third Party Submission declaring that the
work in dispute was Boilermaker's work and did not belong by Agreement Rule 57
or practice to the Machinists. They also pointed to the jurisdictional dis
pute procedures.
A careful review of the record establishes that the Organization has
offered no probative evidence to support its Claim. Further, the Organization
requested on the property and before this Board that the table be moved. This
Board has no authority to issue declaratory judgments (Second Division Awards
11135, 10954, 10708).
Considering the full record, this Board will dismiss the Claim. Dis
missal is mandated when this Board is confronted with a jurisdictional dispute
and dispute resolution procedures have not been complied with (Second Division -
Awards 11486, 11364, 11229, 11070, 11035). Appendix 10 on Jurisdictional Dis
pute Procedures clearly applies to these parties and requires that when a dis
pute involving jurisdiction of work arises between crafts, the Organizations
will resolve the dispute. Herein, there is no evidence that the Organization
followed Appendix 10. Accordingly, the Claim must be dismissed.
A WAR D
Claim dismissed.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest:
~Z, ~--
Nancy J.
_1~r
- Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Il~linois, this 22nd day of February 1989.