THIRD DIVISION
(Supplemental)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: The Carrier owns a coal chute located in its Radnor Yards at Nashville, Tennessee which was originally constructed and placed in service by its Bridge and Building employes. Because of the substitution of diesel for steam power, the structure is no longer used to supply coal to locomotives.
During the period from October 10, 1957 through November 4, 1957, the work of dismantling the mechanism in the afore-mentioned coal chute was assigned to and performed by Mechanical Department employes (Boilermakers), who hold no seniority rights under the provisions of this Agreement.
The work consisted of dismantling and removing the metal scrap material and equipment (such as the buckets and chutes, cut-off gates and shafting leading from the receiving hopper to the chute, etc.) from the above referred to structure. Four hundred and thirty-two hours were consumed by the Mechanical Department employes (Boilermakers) in the performance of this work.
The Agreement violation was protested and the instant claim filed in behalf of the Claimants. The claim was declined as well as all subsequent appeals.
It is hereby affirmed that all data herein submitted in support of our position have heretofore been presented to the Carrier and are hereby made a part of the question in dispute.
CARRIER'S STATEMENT OF FACTS: Having no further need for it because of Dieselization, carrier dismantled the coal chute at Radnor, Tenn. The work of dismantling was performed intermittently beginning with October 9th and completed November 29th. Maintenance of Way forces and Mechanical Department forces both were used in the retirement of this facility.
POSITION OF CARRIER: For many years it had been the practice at Radnor, Tennessee, for mechanical department forces to maintain the elevator buckets, buckets in the bottom of the elevator pits, steel bins that are used to store coal, tipples extending from these bins to the locomotives, sand house elevator, sand chutes and the screening in the sand house. No question has heretofore been raised that the performance of such repair work was not properly assignable to employes covered by agreement between this carrier and System Federation No. 91, AFL, affiliated with the Railway Employes Department.
Had it become necessary to remove and replace any of these parts for repairs, the work would have been performed by boilermakers, as had been done in the past. In these circumstances, carrier submits that there is no difference in dismantling the parts for repairs and dismantling them for scrapping. Therefore, the claim of the employes lacks merit and should be denied.
All matters referred to herein have been presented, in substance, by the carrier to representatives of the employes, either in conference or correspondence.
OPINION OF BOARD: The Carrier determined to dismantle a coal chute in its yards at Nashville. After dieselization it was no longer needed. Maintenance of Way and Mechanical Department forces (Boilermakers) were both used in the work.
The Bridge and Building employes (Maintenance of Way) claim they were entitled to do the work of dismantling done by the Boilermakers.
The Carrier contends that if Bridge and Building employes had such right they waived it in favor of the Boilermakers by agreement of May 29, 1947, as follows:
"WORK TO BE PERFORMED BY INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS, IRON SHIP BUILDERS
AND HELPERS
tie Carrier's hands. The word "dismantling" is found in Rule 41 (a) which specifies certain structures and then includes generally "other structures built of . . . concrete, wood, or steel." The rule further states "All work which is done by Company forces in . . . dismantling . . . other structures, etc."
Carrier cites a great number of awards involving work done by general contractors in dismantling which was held not to violate the Agreement. They are not in point, as here the work of dismantling was done by "Company forces" which brings it under provisions of Rule 41 (a). Furthermore, the agreement contains an exception to the Scope Rule which authorizes the Carrier to contract work out, under certain conditions.
We find Award No. 10750-Stark more nearly in point. The rule involved there is very similar to Rule 41 (a). The words "other structures" and "dismantling," were construed and the claim of Maintenance of Way sustained. We see no distinction between dismantling a structure and mechanism thereof. Definitely the mechanism was not being repaired or replaced. Its use as coal chute mechanism was at end; its dismantling was work for B&B employes and the claim must be sustained.
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