STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee, Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen of America on the Northern Pacific Railway, that
JOINT STATEMENT OF FACTS: Pursuant to a Carrier negotiated contract date June 5, 1912, an interlocking plant was installed at Argo Tower, Seattle Washington.
On July 22, 1953, an operative approach signal for the government of Northern Pacific trains on Northern Pacific right of way adjacent to Argo interlocker was placed in service.
This approach signal and its appurtenances was installed by workers not covered by the Northern Pacific-Signalmen's working agreement and subsequently was and is now maintained by workers not covered by the applicable agreement.
There is no dispute between the parties concerning the maintenance of the Argo interlocking home signals or the signaling facilities laying between the home signals.
Sections 136.307 and 136.310 appearing under the caption "Interlocking Standards" are particularly pertinent to this dispute. Section 136.307 provides that indication locking shall be provided for operating approach signals. Section 136.310 stipulates that a signal shall be provided on main track to govern the approach with the current of traffic to any home signal subject to certain exceptions. These sections clearly recognize that an approach signal is an integral part of an interlocking plan.
Attention is directed to Sections 136.750 and 136.751 defining an interlocking signal system, namely, an arrangement of signals with or without signal appliances which function in a prescribed manner.
The definition of an approach signal as prescribed in Section 136.803 is also significant. An approach signal is defined as a roadway signal used to govern the approach to another signal The installation of an approach signal is dependent upon the existence of another signal. Consequently, the conclusion is inescapable that an approach signal is an integral part of another signal system.
The second question raised by the presentation of the claim covered by this docket is answered in the affirmative i.e., the approach signal for the interlocking plant at Argo is an integral part of that interlocking plant and therefore the installation and maintenance of this approach signal is subject to the June 5, 1912 contract.
The record in this docket amply sustains the conclusion that the Employes have not acquired a right either by agreement or by custom and practice to install and maintain the interlocking plant at Argo; that the approach signal constructed on July 22, 1953 is an integral part of the inter locking plant at Argo; that inasmuch as the Employes have not acquired a right either by agreement or by custom and practice to install and maintain the interlocking plant at Argo, it necessarily follows that the Employes have not acquired a right to install and maintain the approach signal installed on the Colorado Avenue line of the Northern Pacific Railway. Consequently, there has been no removal of work from the scope of the Northern Pacific Signalmen's Agreement by the installation and maintenance of the approach signal at Argo by Union Pacific Signal Department employes.
All data in support of the Carrier's position in connection with this claim has been presented to the duly authorized representative of the Employes and is made a part of the particular question in dispute.
OPINION OF BOARD: The claim involves the installation and maintenance of an approach signal to the Interlocking Plant at Argo a point where the Respondent's tracks cross those of the Union Pacific Railroad.
The dispute is submitted to this Board as a Joint Submission from the parties hereto.
The Organization took the position that the installation and maintenance of the approach signal, should have been, and should hereafter be performed by employes covered by the effective agreement inasmuch as the work in question is clearly covered by the Scope Rule of such agreement. It was pointed out that the "approach" signal was located on Respondent's 8182-15 968
right of way and had to do only with the movement of the Respondent's trains, being outside of the "home" signal limits, and thus not a part of the Argo Interlocking Plant.
The Respondent counters that the work in question can not be considered as coming within the Scope of the confronting agreement since the "approach" signal in question is a part of the Argo Interlocking system the installation and maintenance of which was provided for in a contract entered into in 1912 by predecessors of the Respondent Company and the Union Pacific Railroad, thus removing such work from the category of that which this Carrier can allocate.
The crux of this dispute centers around the question of whether or not the "approach" signal is an integral part of the Interlocking Plant. If it is the work in question properly is part of the subject matter of the Contract of 1912. If it is not we are of the opinion that such work comes within the purview of the Scope Rule of the confronting agreement.
We do not believe the work in question is covered by the Contract of 1912. The subject matter of this contract was the Interlocking Plant. The Rules, Standards and Instructions of the Bureau of Safety, Interstate Commerce Commission define the limits of an interlocking plant as the track between the opposing home signals of such plant.
The parties agree that the "approach" signal in question is not within the area of the opposing home signals.
In Award 3904 in considering a similar factual situation and disposing of an identical problem, we stated:
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; 8182-is 969
That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and
The prime error in this Award is that the majority delves into an area wholly beyond the lawful authority of this Board under the Railway Labor Act. More precisely, the majority has taken it upon itself to interpret a contract between Carrier and the Union Pacific Railroad, lawful successor to an original contracting carrier.
The contracting Carriers had no dispute as to the meaning and coverage of their contract. They were in accord that the matter here involved fell within the coverage of that contract; yet the majority, contrary to the limited power vested in this Division, attempts to tell these Carriers that they were in error as to what their contract covers. We reject entirely any such infringement as this Award perpetrates upon the contract between these Carriers.
The majority relies on Award 3904 as disposing of an identical problem. However, what we say above might have been equally pertinent to Award 3904 except tat in that case the contracting Carriers appear to have acted and construed their contract differently. The majority has seen fit to quote from the Opinion of Board in Award 3904 but has deleted therefrom any reference to the fact that the members of the claiming craft on the Carrier involved had not only originally installed the signal involved, but has maintained same. The deleted sentence referred to reads, "The parties themselves appear to have had the same view of the matter when the new operating distant signals were installed and maintained for three months by the signalmen of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad." Thus, by their actions in evidence in that case, the contracting Carriers gave their contract a different interpretation than is the case in the contract here.
Furthermore, the majority appears to accept the niceties of definitions as upholding its view. However, it chooses to ignore the fact that the Interstate Commerce Commission cited the Union Pacific Railroad, not the Bepondent Carrier, for failure to install the involved signal as part of the interlocking plant. This Board may not presume that the Interstate Commerce Commission acted beyond matters within its power to control; but more important, this Board is without authority to rule on matters regulated by law. First Division Awards 1123, 8832, 17325.