Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 11922
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 11531-T
90-2-88-2-20
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee John C. Fletcher when award was rendered.
(International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Consolidated Rail Corporation
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
1. Time claim (grievance) filed on behalf of Radio Maintainer B.
Best under date December 1, 1986, with the Consolidated Rail Corporation at
Selkirk, New York as follows:
In accordance with Rule 4-P-1 (I), I hereby submit this
claim (Grievance), for your handling.
On October 18, 22, 1986 in violation of the agreement
between the International -Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers and the Consolidated Rail Corporation, you
allowed another craft to perform work that accrues
exclusively to the I.B.E.W.
Calibration and inspection of the End of Train "STU"
device, on unit CR-80237 and CR-80208 had been performed
by Mr. L. 0. B. and Mr. R. Lord, it was determined that
CR-80237 needed a button and battery replacement.
This is a direct violation of the agreement including
Rule 5-F-1.
This transmitting device should have been inspected,
tested and calibrated by a qualified Radio Maintainer.
If no Maintainers were available at work then, one
should have been called in on overtime.
I hereby request that three (3) hours at the overtime
rate be paid to Mr. B. Best, and that future violations
be paid in accordance with seniority of the available
Maintainers.
Form 1 Award No. 11922
Page 2 Docket No. 11531-T
90-2-88-2-20
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.
As Third Parties in Interest, the International Association of
Machinists and Aerospace Workers and the United Railway Supervisors Association were advised of the pendency of this dispute. The Machinists and Aerospace Workers filed a Response with the Division; the United Railway Supervisors Association chose not to file a Response.
The Organization contends that its Agreement was violated when, on
the two dates listed in its Statement of Claim, a Foreman, an employee not
covered by its Agreement, connected two End of Train Devices, Units CR-80237
and CR 80208, to an air supply to check air pressure readings and pushed self
contained test buttons to secure battery power readings. Even though no repairs were performed on the devices, the Organization maintains that such
testing activity constitutes work which should be completed by Radio Maintainers assigned under its Agreement.
Carrier contends that the tests performed by the Foreman is not work
required to be performed by Radio Maintainers. If such tests develop that an
End of Train Device radio transmitter is not operating properly, the device is
sent to the Communication Department for inspection and repair by a Radio
Maintainer. If the tests indicate problems with defective mechanical components repairs are handled by Carrier's Machinists and Carmen, as the case
may be.
Carrier also contends that the basic issue involved here is identical
to that which was addressed and denied in three other System Dockets. These
Claims, handled over a year before denial of the instant Claim, were never
appealed beyond the Senior Director's level and thus, under the provisions of
Rule 4-P-1, the matter must be considered closed.
We do not view the tests completed in this matter as work which must
be exclusively assigned to Radio Maintainers under the Organization's Agreement. The test does not require any special electrical skill, equipment or
procedures to complete. It does not involve maintenance or repair functions.
The tests are performed by Carmen, Foreman and others throughout Carrier's
System. In the past the Organization has filed Claims contending that identical tests was work which should have been done by Radio Maintainers. After
denial, for whatever the reason, these Claims were not appealed off the property.
Form 1 Award No. 11922
Page 3 Docket No. 11531-T
90-2-88-2-20
Accordingly, on this record the Organization has not made a persuasive showing that performing periodic tests of End of Train Devices, without
maintenance or repairs, are duties exclusively preserved to Radio Maintainers
under the Electrician's Agreement.
The Claim will be denied.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest:
Nancy er - Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 8th day of August 1990.