Award No. 6220
Docket No. SG.6130
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Peter M. Kelliher, Referee
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD SIGNALMEN OF AMERICA
THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE
RAILWAY COMPANY
-Coast Lines-
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
Claim of the General Committee of the
Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen of America on the Atchison, Topeka
and Santa Fe Railway that Signal Maintainer C. E. Prock at Ash Fork, Ariz.,
Albuquerque Division, be paid a minimum allowance of four hours at
straight-time rate of pay on Sunday, April 4, 1948.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS:
About 10:00 A. M. Sunday,
April 4, 1948, there was a failure of an indication electric light bulb on the
panel of an inter:ocking machine at Ash Fork, Arizona which was replaced
with a new bulb by the first trick telegrapher assigned to the first trick of
the Ash Fork interlocking plant.
The claimant, Signal Maintainer C. E. Prock, was scheduled subject to
call on this date as provided in Article H, Section 11 (c), of the Signalmen's
Agreement. He was ready, available, and willing to be called to make
repairs to the Ash Fork interlocking or to answer other calls had any
occurred.
The replacement of a defective electric light bulb constitutes repairs
to the interlocking machine, which is specifically covered by the Scope rule,
the relevant portion reading, "This agreement governs the * * * working
condition of employes * * * who * * * repair interlocking plants * * * including all their appurtenances and appliances."
There are no exceptions, either expressed or implied, which permit
the performance of repairs to interlocking plants or their appurtenances by
a telegrapher, as was done in the instant case.
During the handling of this claim on the property the Carrier advanced
several arguments in denying the claim, none of which disposed of the clear
and definite provisions of the Scope rule above quoted.
Formal protest against this violation of the Signalmen's Agreement was
made in the usual manner on the property and appealed in proper order,
without securing a satisfactory settlement.
(3277
6220-7
333
February 1, 1946. The Third Division has repeatedly held and recognized
that when collective bargaining agreements are negotiated or revised and
existing practices are not abrogated or changed by the terms of the new
or amended agreement, such practices are just as enforceable as if they
had been expressly auhorized by the terms of the Agreement itself. See
Awards 3421, 4104, 4791 and many others.
Finally, if there remains any doubt with regard to the correctness of
the Carrier's position that the repacement of a burned out electric light
bulb is not signal work and that the handling complained of in the instant
dispute was not violative of either the "scope" or any other rule of the
current Signalmen's Agreement, it will be resolved by the conclusions expressed in the following excerpt from the Opinion of Board in Third
Division Award 2932 which denied a similar claim of the complaint Brotherhood:
"The replacement of a burned out electric light bulb in a train
order signal requires no special skill. It is just as commonplace as
the replacing of a defective electric light bulb in one's home. It is
not recognized as the attribute of any particular trade or profession.
It is a routine function which anyone could well perform. To hold
that a carrier must call a skilled employe who might often be a considerable distance away, to replace an electric light bulb of ordinary
type, was never contemplated by the Scope Rule. If it should be so
construed, we would be well on our way towards the creation of
contractual absurdity by interpretation.
The Board recognizes the necessity of protecting the work of
signalmen as it does any other group under a collective agreement.
But this does not mean that the simple and ordinary work that is
somewhat incidental to any position or job and requiring little time
to perform, cannot be performed as a routine matter without violating the current Agreement. To come within the scope of the Agreement it must be work requiring the exercise of some degree of skill
possessed by a signalman. It is not disputed that prior to the
negotiation of Signalmen's agreements, the attending of train order
signal lights was the work of the Telegraphers and many Telegraphers' agreements still require it as a Telegrapher's duty. Clearly,
the quoted Scope Rule of the Signalmen is not definite enough to
remove this routine work from the Telegraphers, nor specific enough
to place it exclusively with the Signalmen. The contentions of the
Organization attempt to draw too fine a line and tend to inject too
much rigidity into railroad operation when a reassonable amount of
flexibility is essential to the welfare of both the employes and the
carrier. We do not think that a proper basis of an affirmative award
exists."
In conclusion, the Carrier respectfully asserts that the instant claim is
entirely without support under the Agreement rules and should
be denied
in its entirety.
All that is contained herein is either known or available to the employes or their representatives.
(Exhibits not reproduced.)
OPINION OF BOARD:
About 10:00 A. M. on Sunday, April 4, 1948, a
telegrapher replaced an indication electric light bulb on the panel of an
interlocking machine. The claim is that said work comes within the "Scope
Rule" and therefore should have been assigned to the claimant, a Signal
Maintainer. The record shows that this work has been in the past, performed by more than one classification.
6220-8
334
The Parties are in disagreement as to whether this work is comparable
to that of replacing burned out electric light bulbs in train order signals.
The Company claims the work is comparable and relies on the Organization's failure to further process a claim of March 31, 1942, relating to the
replacement of bulbs in train order signals.
This Board in Award 2932 held that the replacement of burned out
electric light bulbs in train order signals was not "exclusively" that of the
Signalmen. The Scope Rule in that case provided that "Signal work shall
include the
* fi ¢ maintenance
and repair of signals." Both cases involve
the replacement of burned out electric light bulbs and whether they be
considered appurtenances to "signals" or "interlocking plants." The following words of the Board in the above cited Award are equally applicable:
"It is evident that signalmen must be employes of varied skills
and that the rule contemplates that all the work requiring the exercise of such skills, training and experience shall be performed by
signalmen.
The replacement of a burned out electric light bulb in a train
order signal requires no special skill. It is just as commonplace as
the replacing of a defective electric light bulb in one's home. It is
not recognized as the attribute of any particular trade or profession.
It is a routine function which anyone could well perform. To hold
that a carrier must call a skilled employe who might often be a
considerable distance away, to replace an electric light bulb of ordinary type, was never contemplated by the Scope Rule. If it should
be so construed, we would be well on our way towards the creation
of a contractual absurdity by interpretation.
The Board recognizes the necessity of protecting the work of
signalmen as it does any other group under a collective agreement.
But this does not mean that the simple and ordinary work that is
somewhat incidental to any position or job and requiring little time
to perform, cannot be performed as a routine matter without violating the current Agreement. To come within the scope of the Agreement it must be work requiring the exercise of some degree of skill
possessed by a signalman. It is not disputed that prior to the negotiation of Signalmen's agreement, the attending of train order signal
lights was the work of the Telegraphers and many Telegraphers'
agreements still require it as a Telegrapher's duty. Clearly, the
quoted Scope Rule of the Signalmen is not definite enough to remove
this routine work from the Telegraphers, nor specific enough to place
it exclusively with the Signalmen. The contentions of the Organization attempt to draw too fine a line and tend to inject too much
rigidity into railroad operation when a reasonable amount of flexibility is essential to the welfare of both the employes and the
carrier. We do not think that a proper basis for an affirmative
award exists."
FINDINGS:
The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving
the parties to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon, and upon the
whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:
That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act,
as approved June 21, 1934;
That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the
dispute involved herein; and
That no contract violation is shown.
6220-9
335
AWARD
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
ATTEST: (Sgd.) A. Ivan Tummon
Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 29th day of May, 1953.