Form I NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
SECOND DIVISION
Award No. 13118
Docket No. 13021-T
97-2-95-2-48
The Second Division consisted
of
the regular members and in addition Referee
Eckehard Muessig when award was rendered.
(International Brotherhood
of
Electrical Workers
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Burlington Northern Railroad
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
"1. That the Burlington Northern Railroad Company did violate the
controlling agreement dated April 1, 1983, in particular Rule 26(a)
and Rule 50(a), Sections 1, 2 and 6, when on February 9 and 10,
1994, Carrier wrongfully assigned employees
of
the Signal
Department to perform work on AFE 93-1568 in Lemmon, South
Dakota, belonging to the electrical crew at Mandan, North Dakota,
per claim letter dated April 5, 1994, and;
2. That accordingly, the Burlington Northern Railroad Company
should be ordered to compensate Mandan electrical crew members,
D.L. Aeschliman, Dennis Carpenter, Ted Hulm, and Damon Bruce
for 32 hours
of
straight time pay at the rate
of
$15.625 per hour, for
a total
of
$500.00 to be divided equally among the crew members."
FINDINGS:
The Second Division
of
the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all ithe
evidence, finds that:
The carrier or carriers and the employee or employees involved in this dispute
are respectively carrier and employee 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.
Form 1 Award No. 13118
Page 2 Docket No. 13021-T
97-2-95-2-48
Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.
As Third Party in Interest, the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen ("BRS") was
advised of this claim and has provided a Submission in response thereto for the Board's
consideration.
On February 9 and 10, 1994, the Carrier assigned a Signal Crew to install feeder
wires from the disconnect below the meter main to the Crossing Bungalow (Equipment
Building) at Lemmon, South Dakota. Additional wiring was also performed in
conjunction with the signal work at the Lemmon site.
The Board, in its many rulings on issues such as this, has established that the
burden of proving the essential elements of a claim rests with the moving body, in this
case, the Brotherhood of Electrical Workers ("IBEW").
The Organization must show that the disputed work is reserved to its craft by the
provisions of the Parties' Collective Bargaining Agreement. It has not met this burden.
On the other hand, the Board finds that the BRS Scope Rule of September 1, 1972
applicable to the facts of the case. It provides as follows:
"SCOPE
This agreement governs the rates of pay, hours of service and
working conditions of all employees engaged in the construction, reconstruction, reconditioning, installation, reclaiming, maintenance, repair,
inspection and tests, either in the signal shop, or in the field of the
following:
A. All automatic block signals and signal systems, traffic control
systems, train stop and train control systems; interlocking; cab signal
systems; car retarder systems; highway railroad grade crossing protection
systems; hot box, broken flange, broken wheel, dragging equipment, slide,
high and wide load, flood or other similar detector systems; train order
signals; take siding, call on, start or dwarf signals, power and electrically
locked switches, spring switches, tract occupancy indicators, and car
Form 1 Award No. 13118
Page 3 Docket No. 13021-T
97-2-95-2-48
counting devices connected to or through automatic block or interlocking
systems.
B.
All appurtenances, devices and equipment used in connection
with the systems cited in Parasraph A, regardless of where located and
how operated, and devices covered by the scope of this agreement, as well
as any other work generally recognized as signal work.
C.
High and low voltaee sienal lines, overhead and underground
including poles, cables, cross arms, wires, insulators, guy wires, messenger
cables, rings, and other fixtures and equipment used on connection
therewith, conduits and conduit systems, transformers, arresters, and
distributing blocks used in connection with the systems; devices, or
equipment covered by this agreement; inside and outside wiring of all
instrument houses, cases, panels, boards, as well as all cable, where used
in connection with the systems, devices, and euuipment covered by the
scope of this aereement; track bonding, installation of all types and kinds
of bonds, including lightning and static electricity bonding; lighting of all
instrument houses, cases, panels, boards, etc., used in the systems and
devices covered by the scope of this agreement, not including the general
lighting of interlocking tower buildings, shop buildings and common
headquarter buildings." (Emphasis added)
The disputed work involved the installation of equipment below the electric
service meter. This work was specifically addressed by the Carrier and the Signalmen
in a Letter of Understanding, dated August 24, 1972, in paragraph 12 which provided
that: "The installation and maintenance of the necessary electric service to the
disconnect below the meter is covered by the Scope of this Agreement."
However, the evidence shows that the disputed work was necessary for the signal
system. This matter was clearly addressed in Third Division Award 30108, dated April
4, 1994 (LaRocco). The issue leading to Award 30108 was settled under a similar Scope
Rule. It in pertinent part stated:
"This Board concludes that the disputed work is expressly described
in the Scope Rule. The Rule provides that agreement covered employees
shall perform the `installation' of `highway crossing protection devices'
Form 1 Award No. 13118
Page 4 Docket No. 13021-T
97-2-95-2-48
and `their apparatus and appurtenances.' The conduits placed under the
two roads were used exclusively to carry signal circuits for grade crossing
protection devices. The pipes served no useful purpose to the Carrier
absent their appurtenant relation to the signal system and, thus. it is work
expressly reserved to sienalmen by the Scoge Rule. Third Division Award
12697. Stated differently the conduit was integral to the installation of
highway protection devices." (Emphasis added)
We find that the electric power and distribution equipment, at issue in this case.
was an appurtenance to the signal system. For all of the foregoing the claim is denied.
AWARD
Claim denied.
ORDER
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that
an award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 6th day of May 1997.