CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND AND PACIFIC RAILROAD
COMPANY
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen of America on the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad Company that:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Since the amendment of the mrrent agreement which added Rule 1, Signal Testman Classification, all inspections and tests of signal relays, to meet the requirements of the Interstate Commerce Commission with respect to Inspections and Tests - All Systems, as required by paragraphs 104, 108, and 112, Rules Standards and Instructions of the Bureau of Safety, I.C.C., have been made by the Signal Testman. Under date of September 27, 1955, Signal Testman C. V. Penrose wrote the claimants, as follows:
This letter stated that he (Signal Testman Penrose) had been instructed to have the claimants test their own relays which were due at that time under the I.C.C. Rules, Standards and Instructions.
The emphasized portion of the above quoted rule is clear and unambiguous. It permits Signal Maintainers (or other Signal employes) to test and inspect at their own rate of pay. The Signal Testman is responsible for final reports.
It is the Carrier's position that the Signal Maintainers in the instant claim did not perform any work on the dates in question in violation of the current agreement, hence are not entitled to payment claimed.
The Scope Rule of the agreement defines what is signal work and testing and inspecting is definitely included. The principal duty of the claimants is to maintain the signal equipment on their assigned territory; their principal duties are not just inspecting and testing. They were not relieved of maintenance duties when given instructions to make tests on relays on their territory, but were merely instructed to assist in this work.
Signal Maintainers have performed the work complained of in the instant case for many years.
It cannot be denied that the testing performed is signal work, coming under the scope of agreement. Since the definition of a signal maintainer is shown in the agreement as "an employe assigned to perform work generally recognized as signal work," it should be properly assignable to the maintainer, especially in view of Note in Rule 1 quoted above.
A signal maintainer's duties are to perform work generally recognized as signal work. Proper maintenance automatically calls for both inspection and testing on occasion, in connection with their duties. Inspection and testing are within their duties.
For the above reasons, we respectfully petition the Board to deny the claim in this case.
It is hereby affirmed that all of the foregoing is, in substance known to the organization's representatives.
OPINION OF BOARD: On August 10, 29, 30 and 31, September 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12 and 13, 1955, Signal Maintainers O. Herbie, H. H. Sullins and W. J. Peycke tested and inspected relays on their assigned territories. The Carrier contends that this work was performed as a part of their regular duties. Under date of September 27, 1955, Signal Testman C. V. Penrose wrote the Claimants as follows:
"Per Mr. Penrose's recent request to you Gentlemen to test your relays.
"NOTE: Classification of Signal Testman will not cover positions of Inspectors from the Signal Engineer's office with rank and authority comparable to Assistant Signal Engineer nor include nor restrict inspection and tests made by Signal Supervisors or other officials of the company or manufacturers of equipment for the purpose of determining whether employes coining within the scope of this agreement are properly installing or maintaining signal department apparatus, appliances, circuits and appurtenances; neither is it to be interpreted as restricting testing and inspection by any other qualified signal department employe as a part of his regular duties and at his regular rate. Signal testmen may work together or with signalmen or signal maintainers in connection with their inspections without being considered, or requiring a foreman."
An employe required to fill the place of another employe receiving a higher rate will receive the higher rate for time so assigned, except when an assistant signalman is required to relieve another assistant signalman, he will receive his own rate. An employe required to fill temporarily the place of an employe receiving a lower rate, will not have his rate reduced."
inspection by any other qualified Signal Department Employe as a part of his regular duties and at his regular rate." (Emphasis added.)
Other subsequent claims involving the same parties, the same language and the same basic problems have been made. One of these involved the same kind of testing and inspection by another Signal Maintainer, M. W. Kiser, during the month of December, 1955. That claim came before this Board in Docket SG-9403, and was denied in Award 10012, July 21, 1961, with Referee Weston sitting as a member of the Board.
It cannot be denied that Signal Maintainers have always tested and inspected signal equipment as a part of their regular duties. The particular assignment here in question was that of testing the Signal Maintainer's "own relays." This indicates that it was done in connection with their other assigned duties. It was not a case of their being removed from their regular assigned territory and duties to fill a vacancy of a Signal Testman. Therefore, we cannot conclude that either Rule 1 or Rule 25 was violated. Award 10012.
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
After recognizing early in the Opinion of the Board that the work involved was done pursuant to requirements of the I. C. C. Rules, Standards and Instructions and that it is a class of work heretofore performed by Signal Testman Penrose (one of several so classified), and before him by Leadmen, the majority, consisting of the Carrier Members and the Referee, goes on to deny the claim on a fundamentally wrong basis. For example, the majority says in the last paragraph of the Opinion: "It cannot be denied that Signal Maintainers have always tested and inspected signal equipment as a part of their regular duties.", which is true but meaningless here since it falls far short of establishing that the testing and inspecting involved in this dispute was incidental to the regular duties of Claimants in their 10188-is 562
capacity as Signal Maintainers. Then the majority says: "The particular assignment here in question was that of testing the Signal Maintainer's `own relays.' This indicates that it was done in connection with their other assigned duties.", which is in error in that it simply begs the question. Furthermore, the majority's self-serving expression "own relays" is not determinative of the issue because a Signal Testman is never testing his "own relays." On the contrary, the Signal TeAman, in the normal course of his performance, is always testing and inspecting relays and equipment for which some maintainer or other employe classified and paid under the Signalmen's Agreement is directly responsible. Therefore, the majority's bald assertion that Claimants were testing their "own relays" does not establish that said testing was being done in connection with and incidental to their duties as Signal Maintainers. The record adequately disclosed without challenge from Carrier that Claimants were doing the class of work that the parties had in mind when they established the Signal Testman classification and rate of pay. Next the majority says: "It was not a case of their being removed from their regular assigned territory and duties to fill a vacancy of a Signal Testman." thus implying that the application of the Preservation of Rate Rule is limited to those employes echo are removed from their regular assigned territory and duties to fill a vacancy which implication even a cursory reading of Rule 26 will disclose to be highly erroneous. Early in the Opinion the majority quotes enough from the record to show beyond reasonable doubt that Claimants were directed to perform work which the Signal Testman was not available for "account being tied up with other work for some time." Therefore, Claimants were required to fill the place of a Signal Testman and they were entitled to receive the higher rate while so assigned.
Award 10188, like 10012 relied upon by the majority, does not interpret the rules in light of the facts contained in the record; therefore, I dissent.