Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 12075
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 11598-T
91-2-88-2-71
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Edward L. Suntrup when award was rendered.
(Sheet Metal Workers International Association
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Chicago and North Western Transportation Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
The Chicago and Northwestern Transportation Company, hereinafter
referred to as the Carrier, violated the provisions of the current and controlling Agreement, in particular Rules 29, 53, 102 and 103, when they improperly assigned Machinists to install 18 gauge sheet metal roof vents on some
of the Carrier's fleet of locomotives beginning on or about March 11, 1987.
THAT ACCORDINGLY THE CARRIER BE ORDERED T0:
Compensate Sheet Metal Workers M. E. Ludwick, P. G.
Stahlnecker, D. W. Doebelin, S. D. Miller, M. G. Rau,
S. K. Danner, T. L. Townsend, R. J. Jones, B. D. Tyree
and R. L. Neuman, hereinafter referred to as the claimants, in~the amount of four-hundred and sixty-four and
one-half hours (464 1/2) pay at the straight time rate,
equally divided among the claimants and further it is
requested that the claimants be compensated for equal
time on subsequent dates that the violations occur,
until corrected and that a check of the records be made
to determine the amount of time due on the subsequent
dates that violations occurred.
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.
Form 1 Award No. 12075
Page 2 Docket No. 11598-T
91-2-88-2-71
The Claim filed by the Organization stems from the Carrier's assignment of venting work to members of the Machinist Craft at the Carrier's
Council Bluff, Iowa facility. Machinists were assigned to the cutting of 10
and 22 gauge sheet metal, and the installation of 18 gauge metal roof vents to
complete a locomotive roof vent modification program. The Organization alleges that the work belonged to the Sheet Metal Worker craft. The Claim alleges violation of Rules 29, 53, 102 and 103 of the applicable Agreement.
These Rules read, in pertinent part, as follows:
"RULE 29
Mechanic's Apprentices, Doing Craftmen's Work - When
None but mechanics and apprentices regularly employed as such, shall do mechanic's work as per
special rules of each craft.
At a point where it is proved to the satisfaction of
the parties to this agreement that more than two
hours' work is done in any day or night shift in
any one day, based on the average of one week, a
mechanic will be employed.
This does not preclude work being performed by car
department mechanics-in-charge assigned to outlying
points at which the force does not exceed five men,
or in train yards."
"RULE 53
Performing Work - Who
Mechanics' work as defined in the special rules of
each craft will be performed by mechanics, regular
and helper apprentices to the respective crafts."
"RULE 102
Qualifications
Any man who has served an apprenticeship, or has had
four or more years' experience at the various branches
of the trade, who is qualified and capable of doing
sheet metal work or pipe work as applied to buildings,
machinery, locomotives, cars, etc., whether it be tin,
sheet iron, or sheet copper, and capable of bending,
fitting, and brazing of pipe, shall constitute a sheet
metal worker."
Form 1 Award No. 12075
Page 3 Docket No. 11598-T
91-2-88-2-71
"RULE 103
Sheet Metal Workers Work
Sheet Metal Workers' work shall consist of tinning,
coppersmithing, and pipefitting in shops, yards,
and buildings; on passenger coaches and engines of
all kinds, the building, erecting, assembling, in
stalling, dismantling, and maintaining parts made
of sheet copper, brass, tin, zinc, white metal, lead,
black, planished, pickled and galvanized iron of 10
gauge and lighter (present practice between Sheet
Metal Workers and Boilermakers to continue relative
to gauge of iron) including brazing, soldering, tin
ning, leading, and babbitting the bending, fitting,
cutting, threading, brazing, connecting, and dis
connecting of air, water, gas, oil, and steam pipes,
the operation of pipe threading machines; oxy-acetylene,
thermit, and electric welding on work generally recognized
as Sheet Metal Workers' work, and all other work generally
recognized as Sheet Metal Workers' work."
Absent resolution of this Claim on the property it was docketed before this Board for final adjudication. The Board advised the International
Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers of its right to submit a
Third-Party Submission in accordance with Section 3, First (j) of the Railway
Labor Act. A Third-Party Submission was forwarded to the Board.
The facts of this case are as follows. Beginning in 1983 a locomotive roof vent modification program was begun by the Carrier, first on low
horsepower locomotives at various locations, and then on high horsepower
locomotives at Council Bluffs. Following is an outline of work done by years:
Units Installed Location Date
90 Des Moines 1983/84
92 Minneapolis 1983/84
17 Marshalltown 1984/85
334 Council Bluffs 1987/88
Form 1 Award No. 12075
Page 4 Docket No. 11598-T
91-2-88-2-71
According to the Carrier, members of the Machinist craft performed
almost all of the above vent modifications, with the exception of 16 of them
at Council Bluffs and it was acknowledged by the Carrier, and unrefuted by the
Organization, that at certain other locations both Machinists and Sheet Metal
Workers had performed the work. Exceptions to such practice were not taken by
the Organization, however, at Council Bluffs or any other location, until
April 7, 1987, when the instant and first Claim was filed.
The position of the Carrier is that the Organization can have no
Claim to exclusivity over the work at bar. The Carrier argues that the
Machinist's Classification of Work Rule 62 permits the assignment of work of
the type here at bar to members of the Machinist craft. Also this work had
been performed by Machinists since 1983 without exception taken by the Organization until the filing of the instant claim.
After reviewing the record the Board concludes that the Sheet Metal
Worker's Classification of Work Rule 103 does not give their craft exclusive
jurisdiction over this work because of reference therein to the gauge of metal
(10 gauge and lighter).
Since Agreement language does not exclusively assign this work to the
Organization, a second avenue available to establish jurisdiction is a showing
of system-wide-practice reserved "historically, traditionally, and customarily" to this craft. (Second Division Awards 5525 and 5921.) No such practice has been established. The Organization argues that at many locations
where Machinists had been performing the aggrieved work there were no Sheet ''
Metal Workers employed. Such argument is not determinative in the instant
dispute. The Organization is free to police its Agreement and file grievances
regardless of the level of employment at a particular location.
On the record as a whole, the Board cannot sustain the Claim.
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 10th day of July 1991.
Labor Members' Dissent
To
Award 12075 Docket Ho. 11598-T
The Referee in this award totally ignored the provisions of
Rule 103 when he ruled that it and the agreement was
inapplicable in this matter in question.
The record clearly reveals, as stated by the Referee on page
2, this assignment of 10 and 22 gauge Sheet Metal is clearly
defined in Rule 103.
Therefore, to imply that the clear language of Rule 103 does
not require the assignment of this work in dispute to the
Sheet Metal Workers' craft negates the rule.
This Referee again in his convoluted decision on Page 4,
simply disregards the rules and agreement. The record
clearly indicates the fact that this was Sheet Metal Work as
defined in the agreement both as to fabrication and
installation.
The holding that a system-wide practice was necessary
tortures the intent of the agreement. As a system-wide
practice has not been in existence historically since the
first agreement negotiated on the railroad.
The current agreement govern the employment of Sheet Metal
Workers at the point employed and recognizes and preserves
the rules governing seniority, rates of pay and assignment of
work. To propose that a grievance be filed at a location
when no Sheet Metal Worker's are employed, as he should well
know from prior awards would be summarily denied.
This award defies all intellectual logic and the referee's
assumed familiarity and experience with the Shop Craft Rules,
should have provided him with the expertise to have a correct
evaluation of the dispute in this instant case.
We-vigorously Dissent.
R~,~ ~ ,
~~
_______
---------------