STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen of America on the Gulf, Mobile and Ohio Railroad (S.R.) that:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: During the early part of 1954, this Carrier improperly assigned the installation, maintenance, and repair of an annunciator circuit near Bay Springs, Mississippi. to employes who are not covered by and who hold no seniority rights under the Signalmen's Agreement.
The signal work performed consisted of bonding track rails, installing insulated joints, installing track connections and track wires, mounting an instrument case on a pole, installing wires for the local source of energy, and installing a relay and oscillator, all of which are signal appurtenances and appliances and signal work covered by the Signalmen's Agreement.
The purpose of the annunciator is: when a train passes over the bonded circuit it shunts the track, which drops or energizes a relay which produces a tone which is transmitted over the dispatcher's circuit and is heard through the loud speaker in the dispatcher's office at Laura, Mississippi. The source of energy used to operate this annunciator was obtained from the Signal Department's signal installation relay case at the grade crossing protection
The oscillator which was installed at Mile Post G-134 is a device for the communication of sound over telephone and telegraph equipment and the installation was properly performed by telephone and telegraph linemen who are particularly qualified because of experience and training to make such an installation.
The signalmen's agreement is not applicable to the installation referred to in this case and the claim should be denied because it is not supported by the signalmen's agreement, the claim is vague and indefinite, and signal helpers are obviously not qualified to make the installation referred to.
Carrier reserves the right to make an answer to any further submission of the Brotherhood.
OPINION OF BOARD: Signalmen complain that on February 2, 1954, a telephone and telegraph lineman, an employe of the Carrier's Communications Department, installed an annunciator at Mile Post G-134 near Bay Springs Mississippi.
The signalmen call it an annunciator; the Carrier calls it an oscillator, but it is evident that the oscillator was just one part of the installation in question.
The purpose of this installation was to provide a means whereby a train, when it passed over the track at that point, would energize a telephone type relay which, in turn, would cause an oscillator to transmit a high frequency tone over te Carrier's telephone wires to the train dispatcher's office located 23 miles distant at Laurel.
The Carrier denied the claim on the basis that the osci'ln~or is communication equipment, made in the communications shop, rather than signal equipment, that the device transmits sound over the telegraph lines and that 8072-12 467
such work is covered by the scope rule of the Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.
On the other hand the Signalmen claim that this particular job included bonding of track rails, installing insulated joints, installing track connec tions, mounting an instrument case on a pole, installing a relay, oscillator, batteries and wires connecting them.
Signalmen further argue that they have for years installed annunciators, both sound and visual, and that much of the work here involved is recognized as signal work by the Association of American Railroads in its publication, "American Railway Signaling Principles and Practices." They do not claim all of the work that was done here.
Up until May 10, 1946 communications and signal employes of this Carrier were represented by the same Brotherhood. There is some similarity in parts of their work and room for honest differences as to where to draw the line. It appears that we have elements of both crafts involved here.
The Carrier claims that it cannot chop up this work into segments. We appreciate the fact that it may be awkward expensive and not practical to do so, but if the Carrier has bargained itself into a position where it is obligated to do so that settles the matter. We are inclined to believe that it has in this case and that part of the work here involved was typical signal work.
We hold that the track connections, including the bonding of track rails, installing of insulated joints, installing wires to the local source of energy and connecting these with the relay were signal work covered by the agreement. We will stop there and not include the setting of the relay in place for relays are common to both crafts and we are not convinced that the installation of this telephone type relay in this type of device is, by the agreement, the exclusive property of Signalmen. Installing the relay, oscillator and their instrument case and connecting them with the Carrier's telephone lines are excluded.
The matter is remanded to the parties to determine the number of hours involved in the work included above and the proper beneficiary.
The Carrier members of the Board contend that a third party is involved and that under Section 3 First (j) of the Railway Labor Act (45 USC 153, First (j)) this Board has no jurisdiction to proceed in this matter unless and until the third party is given due notice of hearing in accordance with the section. At an earlier stage in these proceedings the Carrier members of this Board moved that notice be given to the third party, but the motion failed for want of a majority. They now reassert the contention before this referee sitting as a member of the Division. 8072-13 468
This device installed here at Mile Post G-134 was the first and only installation of its kind on the property. Maybe others will be installed but we have no evidence that they will. The Communications employes did the work on this job in eight hours and has been paid for it. Whether he or Communication employes, by a sustaining award in this case, ever will be deprived of future work in some other case is problematical. Under these circumstances we hesitate to hold that a third party or a genuine third party interest is "involved" as that word is used in Section 3 First (j) of the Railway Labor Act.
In view of the fact that this award will not adversely affect the third party we hold that no third party and no genuine third party interest are involved and we therefore deny the Carrier's request for notice to the third party.
We are not unmindful of our Awards Nos. 8050 and 8070 (by the same Referee as herein) but we do not feel that every time a third party is mentioned he is necessarily "involved" as that term is intended in the statute and we do not feel that we, as a practical matter, would be justified in complicating this case by giving notice to the Brotherhood of Electrical Workers on the mere speculation that there might be another such job in the future in which they might lose some work and that the Carrier might be confronted with claims from both crafts.
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 we find that there was a violation of the Signalmen's agreement to the extent described above.
Claim (b) is remanded to the parties for determination of the number of hours actually involved in performing that part of the work which we have described above as signal work and for determination of the proper beneficiary. Straight time pay for that number of hours is awarded to that employe.