THIRD DIVISION
(Supplemental)
THE CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO RAILWAY COMPANY
(CHESAPEAKE DISTRICT)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen of America on the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company (Chesapeake District) that:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: The claimant, H. J. Cavendish, on the dates embraced in the instant claim, was regularly assigned as Signal Helper with assigned headquarters at Gauley, West Virginia. Mr. A. T. Clinebell was the regularly assigned Signal Maintainer at Gauley, West Virginia, but on the dates embraced in this dispute was absent and the position was filled by Traveling Signal Mechanic C. R. Durrett.
On February 8, 11, and 12, 1957, the Carrier had a rail relaying program in progress on the Gauley, West Virginia, signal maintenance territory and, in addition to Traveling Signal Mechanic C. R. Durrett and the claimant, the Carrier assigned Signal Maintainer Cole and Signal Helper Reed from the Deepwater signal maintenance territory, and Signal Helpers Adkins and Kelly from its Division Signal Gang, to perform the signal work necessary on the Cooley signal maintenance territory.
On February 8, 11, and 12, 1957, Traveling Signal Mechanic Durrett instructed and assigned claimant Cavendish to operate a power-operated bonding drill, which work is recognized as Signalman's work covered by Rule 4 of the agreement, which pays Signalman's rate of pay.
OPINION OF BOARD: The claim in this case is simple and direct. Claimant Cavendish makes claim that it is the work of a Signalman in all instances to operate a power bonding drill to drill holes in rails for bonding purposes, and that such work is not the work of a Signal Helper; that the Agreement was breached in using Signal Helper Cavendish to operate a power drill in drilling for rail bonding on February 8, 11 and 12, 1957.
The Carrier contends that the operation of a power bonding drill was assigned to Cavendish for performance in accordance with all applicable rules and in accordance with the practice and custom of using a Signal Helper to operate a power drill down through the development of railroading and that, therefore, there has been no breach of the rules.
Rule 28 generally provides for an additional allowance in pay when a Signal Helper is assigned to perform the duties of a Signalman or Signal Maintainer or others.
It is obvious that the question cannot be determined by reference to the provisions of the Agreement alone. The parties to the Agreement have defined the coverage of the Agreement in terms of positions rather than in terms of work. Thus, of necessity, the Board must rely upon evidence outside of the Agreement itself in order to determine whether the work in question has been reserved traditionally and customarily to a particular classification covered by the Agreement. The burden of producing such evidence rests upon the Claimant who alleges the Agreement has been violated. (See Award 7338Cluster).
The Petitioner has offered no competent evidence that the operation of a power bonding drill is the regular or exclusive signal work of a Signalman.
On the other hand the Carrier has furnished evidence that Signal Helpers have been used down through the development of railroading to turn the manual or hand-powered drills in drilling holes in rails for making rail bonds, and when power drills were introduced to do such work, mechanically, helpers have continued to do such drilling by the use of mechanically operated power drills.
The claim that drilling holes in rails becomes skilled work performable only by a Signalman or Maintainer simply because mechanical power instead of hand power is used will not hold up. An improvement in a machine does not of itself make a new or different operation. (See Award 8217-Beatty). 10498-14 463