On Thursday, March 15, 1956 a Car Department employe drove the company truck to transport himself and other carmen with tools and material to the Chevrolet Plant in Janesville for the purpose of rerailing freight cars. The services of a Store Department employe were in no way required. There was no Store Department material nor any Store Department function involved in this instance. Car Department employes had, on many occasions during the past years, used the Store Department truck or used a company truck assigned to some other department to transport themselves to points within and outside Janesville in exactly the same manner as was done in this particular instance.
The circumstances in connection with the other dates involved in the claim are quite comparable.
Surely it will be apparent in each case that it was totally unnecessary to have a Store Department employe drive the company truck and accompany the Mechanical Department employes to the various locations for equipment repairs. This is not work which is included within the scope of the Clerk's Agreement, it is not work which has been performed exclusively at any time by employes covered by the scope of the Clerks' Agreement but to the contrary, is work included within and performed by employes covered by the Shop Craft Agreements and we submit there is no provision within the schedule rules which awards the work of driving company trucks, to handle Locomotive and Car Department employes to various locations, to employes covered by the Clerks' Agreement, but to the contrary, specifically by the provisions of the first paragraph of Rule 1 (e), as this work is covered by other agreements, it is definitely and specifically excluded from the scope of the Clerks' Agreement.
While the circumstances involved in the case covered by Award 7310 are not identical to those involved in the instant case, yet it would appear that much the same principle was involved. There your Honorable Board denied the claim of the Store Department chauffeur and held that "the driving of this truck is incidental to the work of servicing of Diesel Locomotives and is but a part of the general business of the use of material, tools and the furnishing of supplies and is a part of the primary function of such service and this work is properly that of Maintenance of Equipment employes."
OPINION OF BOARD: The paucity of the evidence presented and exchanged by the parties during the handling of this dispute on the property requires dismissal of the Claim. Please see Circular No. 1 of the Board.
Having reached this conclusion, it is not necessary to decide other issues raised by the parties or in their behalf. 10740-11 218