PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD SIGNALMEN OF AMERICA

MISSOURI-KANSAS-TEXAS RAILROAD COMPANY,


MISSOURI-KANSAS-TEXAS RAILROAD COMPANY

OF TEXAS


STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen of America on the Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Company, Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Company of Texas that:


(a) The Carrier violated and continues to violate the current Signalmen's Agreement when it failed and/or declined to apply the Scope, Classification, Hours of Service, and Call rules or other provisions of the current Signalmen's working agreement, bearing effective date of April 1, 1943, by not assigning generally recognized signal work to employes covered by the working agreement. Specifically, the signal work involved in this claim is the routine and regular testing and inspection of signal apparatus, appliances, and appurtenances which constitute component parts and are integrant to the signal system on this Carrier's property;


(b-1) Signal Maintainer L. B. Shiner, with headquarters at West, Texas, shall be compensated at his regular rate of pay on the basis of time and onehalf for an amount of time equal to that required by persons not covered by the current Signalmen's Agreement to perform signal work assigned to such persons in violation of such agreement; namely:























4828-2 275
8hours, August 27, 1948






(b-2) Signal Maintainer J. B. McBride, with headquarters at Oswego Kansas, shall be compensated at his regular rate of pay on basis of time and one-half for amount of time equal to that required by persons not covered by the current Signalmen's Agreement to perform signal work assigned to such persons in violation of such agreement; namely:





. 1 hour, August 10, 1948




(b-3) Signal Maintainer J. M. Nading, with headquarters at Vinita, Okla., shall be compensated at his regular rate of pay on the basis of time and one-half for an amount of time equal to that required by persons not covered by the current Signalmen's Agreement to perform signal work assigned to such persons in violation of such agreement; namely:












(b-4) Signal Maintainer Findley Wilson, with headquarters at Pryor, Okla., shall be compensated at his regular rate of pay on the basis of time and one-half for an amount of time equal to that required by persons not covered by the current Signalmen's Agreement to perform signal work assigned to such persons in violation of such agreement; namely:









(b-5) Signal Maintainer A. W. Lofton, with headquarters at Wagoner, Okla., shall be compensated at his regular rate of pay on the basis of time and one-half for an amount of time equal to that required by persons not covered by the current Signalmen's Agreement to perform signal work assigned to such persons in violation of such agreement; namely:






4828-13 286

negotiated, when revision of Signalmen's Agreement was requested October 1, 1947 and when original claim was made by him in April 1948, immediately after mediation proceedings were terminated by the National Mediation Board, April 12, 1948, in Case A-2714. If this work was, in fact, covered by and subject to the Scope and other rules of the current Signalmen's Agreement on this property, as Petitioner is now contending, the General Chairman of the Signalmen's Organization surely would have made such claim when such alleged agreement violation first occurred and not five years later. Obviously this claim is designed for no other purpose than to obtain an illconstrued and improper interpretation of the current Signalmen's Agreement on this property, contrary to the interpretation placed on that agreement by the parties, and thrust upon the Carrier a change in that agreement which the Organization requested and the Carrier was compelled to decline, both in direct negotiations and in mediation proceedings. Therefore, any award, other than a denial of this claim, would not only be contrary to the provisions of the current Signalmen's Agreement on this property, as they have been understood and interpreted by the parties in the past, but would also be contrary to the Certification of the National Mediation Board in Case No. R-1825, dated July 24, 1947, and the Railway Labor Act.


The claims in this case are for the amount of time Signal Maintainers actually assisted Signal Supervisors in making tests of signal apparatus during their regular assigned tour of duty at rate of time and one-half in addition to straight time paid for time actually worked, which, if allowed, would constitute payment on basis of two and one-half times the straight time rate. The agreement contains no such penalty for work actually performed, or time and one-half for work not performed.




Except as expressly admitted herein, the Carrier denies each and every, all and singular, the allegations of Petitioner's claim, original submission and any and all subsequent pleadings.


(Exhibits not reproduced.)

OPINION OF BOARD: The Carrier assigned the performance of certain periodic work of testing and inspecting the component parts of its signal system to Signal Supervisors. Claimants contend that this work is within the Scope of the Signalmen's Agreement and that the Agreement was violated when it was assigned to Signal Supervisors, positions not within the Signalmen's Agreement.


The dispute grows out of the passage by Congress of the Signal Inspection Act approved August 26, 1937. Pursuant to this Act, the Interstate Commerce Commission promulgated rules, standards and instructions as to the manner of installing, maintaining and inspecting the equipment to which the Act referred. Certain requirements as to the testing and inspecting of designated devices and appliances are set forth together with a method of reporting the results. The Carrier assigned this work to Signal Supervisors who as their title implies, were supervisory employes outside of the Scope of the Signalmen's Agreement. The question for decision is whether the work is reserved to signalmen under their Agreement.




:J~&6I 'IZ aunf panoadds ss 'joy ioqsZ 6smllajj aq; ;o 2u;usaw oil; uiq;lm saAoldwa pus aalusD 6lanl;Dads -as gag ands?p slq; ui panlonul saAOIdwg aq; pus aaIJJPD OE; ;sqy




: SPIOI{ PUB SPOT 'aauapIna aq; IIS pus paoaaa aloqm a uodn 'pasog ;uaw;snfpV ay; ;o uois?nia pa?qy any :SONIQNId


'FPZ4 Pasmy ;o 2uluoseaa 9114 sapun a;sa s;aa Did aq; ;s pamolls aq Illm wI8ID ayy


*SZpf, pasmV ';Insaz awls aq; o; spsal uoi;aloin a ul aouaosainboV 'spaom ulsld ;o 2uiusaw aq; a2usqo o; ;ou ;nq suoc;saedaa o; asq a se a;saado Asw ;I -;uawaaa2y OR ;o a2sn2US[ U?ald aq; apasaadns IOU saop aO?;osad V juaw -aaa2y ;uaaano s,uawlsu2cs aq; ;o a;zp DT44 o; aoiad saosinaadns jsu2ls Aq pawao;aad Haom ssm 2u?;aadsui pus 2upsa; ;s4; san.Sas aal:aso aqy


'089F 'ILbb '6669 sPasmV 'sapaad aq; ;o s;q2ia aq; aulwaa; -ap o; uoi;DipscanC ssil pasog aq; 'paqlaasap niaaaq 2u?;oadsul pus 2ui;sa; ;o tlaom aq; cuao;sad o; ;osa;uoo s 2u?nsj uawlsu2is aqy 'sasias a;ndslp iauoI;OIp -sunk a ;s11; ;i o; ;112u ;DSa;uoD s ssIJ uoi;azlus2xo On PUS UOI;szlus2ao DUO Usq; aJow .fq Paw?slD s? 7[30m aaaqm .fIUO si ;I alndsip jsuoi;oipsian.r a asrea IOU saop saLL ·aalaaso aq; q;im ;uawaaa2y aiaq; aapun saos?naadnS Lgu2iS ;o s;112?a aq; alllMaOlaP IOU Op a/A 'apses aA'Bt[ .Caq; qOILIm ;uawaaa2V aq; aapun uawlsu2iS aq; Pus aaiaaso aq; ;o s;q2p 911; 6luo au?wsa;ap aaaq aA 'panIonUI aaaq angst ail; apioap o; S;laoq;ns ou ssq pasog siq;;8l{; pus s;sTxa a;ndslp Ivuoijo.Pi stin

'*oul 'saosinaadnS Asmlisg usouawV aq; BE ;s11; spua;uoo aauaso ayy

*;Uawaaa2V ;aq; ulq;?m saSoldwa o; pae,aasaa 3faom sI 6l;uanbasuoo pus ;uawaaa2V s,uawlsU2ls 911; ;o alnZl adoos 911; mq;?m Alasalo st uoi;sanb ul aaaq Haom aqy -aaa;lam oilqnd aq; ;o uoi;owoad 911; Or saDusildds 6;a;as ;o atedaa pus aDusua;Uizw 'uoi;elle;sul aq; ao; suol;sln2aa ;ua2uuys aaow amAaa o; sT mat 911; ;o asodand loan aqy 'aay;O aq; Ul Ss 9820 DUO 911; Ui ;;eia zBln3l ;asd s ;o xaom aq; gonw ss si pawao;aad aq o; Haom leuoi;Ipps a11y

·paqlaosaad sanlaswaq; SOSI; saUO aq; Ss aaUUSUl OWES 911; Ul ;no waq; .Cusa o; pa2llqo sT aaIaaeo aq; 'aUOP ssq aaISaso 911; Usq; saIn,x aa;Dla;s Umop .fel o; a38;Iam Dllqnd aq; o; Sasssaoau ;l wasp da;unoD 911; ;o saamod 2uiHSw -maI 911; sUO98O7 SUE JO; 'aanamoq 'aaaqzh *asodand BUT; clsildwooos o; s;sa; pus suoi;oadsul a.nnbaa 'A;np aiq; ;o aousuuo;sad 911; UT SIIxaUIPao IISm ;I 'Xl;UaIDUja pus klaps psoallaa s;i a;saado o; ;uawa2suew ;0 6;np Oil s? ;I


-snoauoaaa si uoildwnsss qons XuV waqsAs Isu2?s ail; ;o aladaa pus aOUUUa;Ulew 'uol;alls;sul 9q; o; u2?aao; 2uiq;awos aas lay uoi;oadsul Isu:2IS aLpl 'Iq paxinbaa s;sa; pus suol;oadsui 911; ;sq; an2as o; sasadds aaia -aeo aqy 'wa;sss IEU21S acg ;o aledaa pus aouaua;ucew 'uoi;slls;sui aadoad 911; o; S.xaesaoau 2m,;ea; pus 2m;Oadsul 911; apnIOUI IOU saop ;I Ing 'suot;?sod aiaq; ul ;uaaaqul s? qo?qm slaom uoi;Dadsui ;o s;unowe 2t11Xa8A II;Im pa2asqO aau saaag;o daosinaadns [IV ';uawaaa.SV aq; .Cq panaasaa IOU in plag 911; ui sn;aasdda leu2ls ;o 2ui;oadstq jle ;sq; ;as;no 911; ;s papaouoa aq Illm ;I


'86PI PasmV 'aaaqmasia ;? 2UIE2?SSV Ul aoaaa u? ai aalaasa aq; ';uawaaa2V a?aq; aapun uawlsu2is o; panaasaa sl ;I 'PapUa;uOO Ss ,Ji 'pus aauaeo aq; 611 pawaojnd aq o; paainbaa gem q;Imaaaq; Pa;oauuoa Nam aqywislD 7uasaad 9114 o; uoi;slaa on saq 'o;a:aq; ;usnsand pa;a2lnwoad salna ao 'ssaa2uoa ;o ;3V us .fq paainbaa si gaom 911; ;sq; ;as; aq,I, -aanlle; IauoI;Dun; ;su;s2e pasntla;as z BE osls ;nq 'paaan3oo seq ;? aa;;s alqnoa; ;o asnao aq; aulwaa;ap o; 6luo IOU 'Saessaoau sr ilaom qons 'sn;sasdde ;o 2u[;Dadsul pus 2ul;sa; sapnlDui .CUsal3 alnZI adoOS 2mo2aao; @ELL






4828-15 288

That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and





    Claim sustained at the pro rata rate.


            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

            By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: A. I. Tvmmon
Acting Secretary

Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 31st day of March, 1950.