PARTIES TO DISPUTE: BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD SIGNALMEN OF AMERICA SEABOARD AIR LINE RAILROAD COMPANY

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen of America on the Seaboard Air Line Railroad Company that:





EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: W. O. Judy, Leading Signalman, C. O. Stone, Signalman, and L. A. Bastian, Assistant Signalman, employes in Signal Construction Gang #k9, were engaged in performing the signal work of installing new signals around F&J Junction at Jacksonville, Fla. The signal gang worked on this new signal installation on Friday, Sep-


11174-36 205

    with the understanding that your request for representation of the above positions will be withdrawn from mediation.


                        Very truly yours,


                      /s/ J. C. Wroton

                        General Manager.


    ccMr. H. J. Edge, General Chairman Brotherhood of Railway Signalmen of America, Aberdeen, North Carolina. ccMr. G. S. Macswan"


The claim filed in December 1952 is now before the Third Division (Docket SG-7854) involving the same principle of whether "testing and inspecting" as referred to is signal work coming under the scope of the Signalmen's Agreement.


There is no merit to the contention of the Brotherhood and the instant claim should be denied.


Carrier affirmatively states that all data contained herein has been made known to or discussed with Brotherhood representative.


OPINION OF BOARD: On October 23, 1956 the Employes' General Chairman wrote to the Carrier's General Construction Supervisor stating that certain supervisory personnel performed "recognized signal work on Saturday, September 8th, from 9:30 A. M. to 7:00 P. M., and on Sunday, September 9th, from 10:00 A. M. to 9:00 P. M., in connection with new construction work around F & J Junction, at or near Jacksonville, Florida, in violation of the Signalmen's Agreement." Claim was made on behalf of W. O. Judy, Leading Signalman, C. O. Stone, Signalman, and L. A. Bastian, Assistant Signalman, who were regularly assigned to installing signal facilities and who did not work those two days because they were their rest days.


On October 30, 1956, the Employes' General Chairman again wrote to Carrier's Construction Supervisor stating that the Carrier accept an additional claim "on behalf of W. O. Judy, Leading Signalman, to be paid for all time worked by W. J. Goodwin, Assistant Signal and Telephone Supervisor, on October 23, 1956, while performing signal work at or near Market Street in Jacksonville, Florida, at which time Mr. Goodwin changed-out relays in the relay house, pulled out temporary wires and installed permanent wires on terminals, in connection with new signal work being done by a signal gang in which Mr. Judy was working."


The Carrier declined the claim contained in the Employes' letter of October 23, 1956 because "the Signalman's Agreement between the Seaboard Air Line Railroad Cmpany and the B R S of A employees was not violated." At the same time the Carrier refused to accept the additional claim contained in Employes' letter of October 30, 1956. In this connection the Carrier said, "should you wish to enter this as a separate claim, we will accept it."


It is a well established principle of this Board that Construction Supervisors have the right and duty to inspect and test equipment installed by

11174-37 ?06

subordinates. In Award 8293 (Bailer) involving the same parties and the same Agreement we said:


    "We think the consistent past practice on this question and the parties' discussion of the matter during their negotiation of the subject Agreement reflect their mutual intent that the inspection and testing of the nature here at issue is not included within the Scope Rule. To sustain the Petitioner's contention on this phase of the case would amount to granting the employes that which they failed to obtain through negotiation."


The conditions have not changed and the Award is not palpably erroneous. W e affirm this principle as applicable to the issue here involved.


Whether or not work other than testing and inspecting was performed on September 8 and 9, 1956 is a matter of evidence which must be presented on the property. The record does not disclose evidence presented on the property to show that any work other than testing and inspecting was performed. This Board firmly holds to the principle that this contention cannot initially be made before the Board (Awards 5469 -Carter, 3950 -Carter, 6500 - Whiting, 6657- Wyckoff, 7036- Whiting, and 8324-McCoy).


For the reasons herein stated the claim on behalf of employes for work performed on September 8 and 9, 1956 cannot be sustained.


We do not agree with the Carrier that the claim of Signalman, W. O. Judy for work performed on October 23, 1956 "is not properly before the Board as it was not filed in accordance with the requirements of Article V of the National Agreement of August 21, 1954." Section 1 (a) of Article V of that Agreement provides in part, that:


    "All claims or grievances must be presented in writing by or on behalf of the employee involved, to the officer of the Carrier authorized to receive same, within 60 days from the date of the occurrence on which the claim or grievance is based."


A claim was presented on the October 23, 1956 occurrence by letter to the Carrier dated October 30, 1956, well within the 60 day limitation. The claim for the September 8 and 9 occurrence was presented to the Carrier by letter dated October 23, 1956 also within the 60 day limitation. While the occurrences were 44 days apart, the presentations were only seven days apart and both were well within the limitations provided for in Section 1 (a) of Article V of the National Agreement of August 21, 1954.


There is nothing in the Railway Labor Act, nothing in the Rules of Procedure of the National Railroad Adjustment Board, nothing in the National Agreement of August 21, 1954, nor in the Rules of the Agreement between the parties, which justifies Carrier's refusal to accept this claim. The Railway Labor Act brings within the jurisdiction of the Board all "disputes between an employee or groups of employees and a Carrier or Carriers growing out of grievances . . . The United States Supreme Court in Pennsylvania Railroad Co. vs. Day (360 U. S. 548) has held:

'(P) Pun (a) wiuIa o;;aadsax q;lm;uawaaz2V ail; a;ulocA plp pun (q) pur (e) uxiula o;;oadsaz q;cm;uawaaa2V ail; 04VIOTA ;ou PIP zaLZIBD aq;;eqy


PUS : ulazaq paAIOAUI a;ndsip ail; aaAO uocVipsianf Evil pxuog ;uam;snfpV ail; ,;o UoislATa slq; quill


°4g6T `TZ aunt PgAozddu ss ';aV zoqu2 Seml;eg ail; ;o 2tquuaux ail; uiq;cm swfolduxg pun zalazeg AJOA14 -aadsaa azu a;ndsip sIq; UT paAIOAUI saAoldwg aql pun aaizzzp ail ;uq,l,


:sploq put: spug'aauaPIAa ail; liz pun pzoaaz aloqm atl4 uodn pun 'uoaaaq 2uizeaq ;o aoc;ou anp a;adsip siq; o; sai;.tud ail; 2UIA12 za;3e 'paeog ;uam;snfpV ail; jo uoisiATa pzlq,l, aql, -SUNIQNId


-sn axo;aq;ou si;eq; asnsaaq s;laaw Dill no aInz o; uoi;lsod z ui IOU aze aA.T -pamollz si 9967 `E2; zaqoqao ;o uxizl3 ail; ;eq; ploq o; pa2ilqo Dan am pun ;uamaaz2y pauoi;eX ail; ;o A aI017zV 30 (u) T uol;aaS q;l.a aaUepaoaae ul pamolleslp svm wtula 0114 ;eq; saSoldwg ail; A;;;ou 01 paIIU; sutI zacazeo ail; ;eq; ploq o; pa2ilqo Din am uosuaa ;zq; Dog -s;lzam s;l no wizIa ail; aullaap aaizzzo ail; plp amp on ;y _'POAlaaaa uaqm wiela man a su pa;zaa; pun palpueq ail tlcm ;l 'zaxzug 'aw Aq paUll;no se nli2ID IeuoI;IPpe UB axeux o; qslm not ;! Pun J01101 SllIq UT 01 pacldax ail IOU llcm uxiula lUU121I0 ail; o; apzm ail o; paolsu no6 ;sq; uoi;ippz ail;_ ;uq; 2ui;e;s sadoldwg ail; 0; a;ozm aalzzza 0114 'L96T `ZZ Azenuef uo


    _';i;daaau jlim am'uxlulo a;uzudas z su siq; za;ua o; qsim noA plnoqs pun 'Vg aaqo;oo ;o za;;aI anog Ul pauoT;UaUu Uvula ail; 0; uol;IppU se SIM ;daaae ;ouuua aMt_


      smollo; sn saAoldwg ail; o3 a;oxm zalzzeo ail; 9961 `9T zaqwaAON uo


    _'saauzAa;z2 JO suxMla U?jjUlTS sail;o o; se

    zalzzug ail; ;o suol;ua;uoa ail; ;o xaAlem jo ;uapaaaad a se pazap;s

    -UoD ail IOU lluqs siq; ynq 'pa;uasazd se pamollu ail IIzqs aaueAalJ2 zo

    uxizlo ail;'pagpou Os ;oU;l "aauumolIusip qans zo; suosaaz ail; jo 2uI

    -;lam Ut (anc;e;uasazdaz slq Jo aSolduta 0114) aaueAalz2 so wlela palg

    zaAaoqm A114OU 'palg si awes a;up ail; uma; sSep 09 ulq;cm 'lluqs

    zaizaso ail; 'pamollesip ail aausAaczB JO uxlula qans .fun plnoqS_


:smolloj su';zed UT `sapiAozd zaqlan;;uam -aaa2V P96T `TZ 3snAnV ail; ;o (e) T uoi;aaS -;c pamoIleslp zaAOU;l '9961 '9y zaqo;ao no paaanaao qoiqm wiela ail; ;daaae of pasnjaa saizaeo aqy


';uawaaz2 f7 ;uql JO suoisiAozd aaq4o ail; q;im aauepaoaae ut pa;uasasd Div suxlep aq;;eq; paplAozd pun 'joazaq; A al0c;.tV 30 (e) T uoI;aaS of paplAozd sl iwiI ami; oil; UTq41AI pa;uasazd aze smlela ail; ,;o qaea 2ucplAozd 'sansst Isailuapl ~fulAIOAUI PUB ;uamaaa2V awes ail; 3o ;no 2msiae 'sailzud owns ail; uaam;aq swizID IsaaAas 2ui2zam moil Moldma uz s;lqlqozd qaiqm;uamaaz2V;zq; ui 2uiq;ou si azaqy lsaauvAaizZ qons ;o ~uissaoozd ail; pun uoi;quasaad ail; ao; suoqs;lmil amp pun saznpaaozd ail; ;no s;as 'y96T °Ty ;sn2nV ;o ;uawaaz2V Ieuoi;uN aqy


    _"aaAoldwa pun aa;zzsa uaam;aq dlqsuoi;elaa ail jo ;no 2uisiae sa;ndsip ap;as o; luunqla u se paqsllqz;sa sum paeog ;uaw;snfpy puozlleg Iuuoi;uX aqL_


                  LONG ss-6LTT C

11174-39 208

                  AWARD


    Claim (a) and (b) is denied.


    Claim (c) and (d) is sustained.


              NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD By Order of THIRD DIVISION


              ATTEST: S. H. Schulty

              Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day of February 1963.