The same rules and practices were involved in Award 4798, 6007 and 6053, and the denial awards were based on the long-established practice and the absence of rules supporting the claims.
The carrier denies that the trackmen involved in this claim performed other than trackman's work on July 30 and 31, 1953, but if for some unknown reason it is found that they performed other than trackman's work, then the carrier contends it cannot be found that they performed other than B&B laborers' work, which is performed under existing rules and practices in effect on this carrier by trackman at the trackmen's rate of pay.
Management affirmatively states that all matters referred to in the foregoing have been discussed with the committee and made a part of the particular question in dispute.
OPINION OF BOARD: Some of the facts in this case are in dispute. The weight of the evidence indicates that the following occurred. On July 29, 1953 an underground water supply line in the Carrier's Plattsburg yard was found to have developed a leak at a point under the turntable track. On July 30 a Plumber Foreman, a Plumber, a Plumber Helper and two Trackmen were assigned to this repair project. On July 31 a Plumber Foreman, two Plumbers, two Plumber Helpers and two Trackmen completed the work involved. The Trackmen dug out-and removed several ties, and spiked the switch. A Plumber and the Plumber Helpers performed digging to reach the faulty water pipe, and the pipe repair itself was performed exclusively by the plumbing force. The Trackmen threw back some of the dirt being thrown out by the Plumber employes, assisted in backfilling the trench after the repairs were made, and restored the track to its original condition. The Organization contends the Trackmen performed digging beyond that necessary to remove the ties, as well as other specified tasks to assist the plumbing force, but there is no substantial evidence on this point.
The substance of this claim is that the subject Trackmen were required to perform work customarily done by Plumbing Helpers since they were assisting the plumbing force in repairing a water line and worked under the supervision of a Plumber Foreman. The Organization contends the claimant Trackmen thus were entitled to the Plumber Helper rate under the composite service rule of the Agreement. The Carrier asserts the Claimants were properly engaged because they were used only to perform track work. It further contends that even if it were held that the disputed activity was not Trackmen's work, it cannot be found that it was other than B & B Laborer's work, which under the existing rules and practices is performed by Trackmen at the Laborer's rate of pay.
Numerous cases of this general character involving the application of the composite service rule have been decided by this Board. Among the criteria applied are the principal purpose for which the work was performed; whether the claimants worked as an integral part of the higher rated crew or whether divisible work was performed by two or more groups in their respective domains; and the extent and effect of past practice in assigning employes in this respect.
The total operation of repairing the water line in the subject case was clearly divisible into track work and plumbing work. The removal and reinstallation of the ties, and the digging made necessary thereby, comprised work customarily performed by the track forces. Such work was essential to the general pipe repair operation, but this fact did not make it plumbing work. Had the Carrier assigned Pumber Helpers to this particular phase of the overall job, it would have exposed itself to a claim from the Trackmen. 7838-6 476
The evidence of record leads us to the conclusion that any work which the claimant Trackmen may have performed other than that dealing with the ties was minimal in relation to their track work, or incidental thereto. Thus we are of the opinion and find that the Claimants did not perform the duties of Plumber Helpers, as the Organization contends. This finding makes it unnecessary to comment on the Carrier's argument that even if the disputed work were held not to be Trackmen's work it must be considered as Laborer's work in the B & B Department.
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 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