NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Bernard J. Seff, Referee
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD SIGNALMEN
GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the Great Northern Railway Company that:
(a) The Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement, as
amended, particularly paragraphs (g) and (k) of the Scope Rule, when
it installed factory-wired bungalows in connection with the construction
of a Centralized Traffic Control system between Des Lacs and Wheelock
on the Minot Division.
(b) The Carrier should now be required to compensate the gang
men on the Lines East Seniority District for eighty (80) hours' pay at
the Signalmen's rate for each of the twenty (20) bungalows used in
this C.T.C. installation.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: During 1957 the Carrier purchased factory-wired CTC bungalows and placed them in service in connection
with the installation of a Centralized Traffic Control system. On September 18,
1957, Mr. Everett B. Luse, General Chairman, wrote the following letter of
protest to Mr. R. A. Johnson, Engineer Signals:
"Please be advised that the wiring of relay bungalows properly
comes within the scope of our agreement and this work belongs to the
employes we represent.
We are protesting the use of prewired bungalows and will make a
claim accordingly.
There is no justification whatsoever by having our work performed by others while at the same time our men are being laid off by
the dozens which has occurred the past two months."
General Chairman Luse again wrote to Engineer Signals Johnson, on
December 18, 1957, as follows:
"Please refer to my letter to you under date of September 18, 1957,
wherein I stated that we were protesting the use of prewired bungalows and would make a claim accordingly.
[ill
11792-20
30
2. The pre-wired CTC bungalows are not custom-built as the Organization alleges, but standard catalog items which may be
ordered in several different models.
3. The Scope Rule of the Signalmen's Agreement contains absolutely
no language which would tend to support the Organization's contention that the Carrier has surrendered its inherent managerial
right to purchase signal equipment from a manufacturer.
4. Awards Nos. 4662, 5044, 7833, 7841, 7842, 7843, 7844 and 7965 of
the Third Division, N.R.A.B., are directly in point, and establish
the principle that clear and specific language is necessary in the
Scope Rule in order to restrict the Carrier's inherent right to purchase factory-assembled equipment; and that the rights of the
Carrier's employes to perform work on equipment does not arise
until that equipment becomes the property of and under the control of the Carrier.
5. Many cited awards of the Second Division, N.R.A.B., support the
principles established by the Third Division awards cited above.
6. The claims for unnamed and unidentifiable claimants are absolutely
barred by the provisions of Article V, 1(a), of the August 21,
1954 National Agreement.
7. The claim for an arbitrary penalty in the amount of 80 hours pay
for each of the twenty pre-wired CTC bungalows is purely speculative and without any evidentiary support whatsoever.
For the foregoing reasons, the Carrier respectfully requests that the claims
of the Employes be denied.
All of the evidence and data contained herein has been presented to the
duly authorized representatives of the Employes.
(Exhibits not reproduced.)
OPINION OF BOARD:
In connection with the installation of Centralized
Traffic Control between Des Lacs and Wheelock, North Dakota, Carrier purchased from the General Railway Signal Company twenty pre-wired instrument housings or bungalows. These housings or bungalows as received on the
property contained all of the apparatus and internal wiring needed to fit them
into the complete CTC system.
The placement of the bungalows and the connecting of them into the complete system was performed by Carrier's Signal Department employes. It is
the work that was done at the factory that the employes complain about. The
Employes allege that the several bungalows were fitted and wired according to
plans and blueprints which Carrier furnished the Manufacturer, therefore, they
were, and we quote the Employes, "tailor made" to suit the needs of this carrier
and, consequently, represent work reserved to Signalmen by the Scope Rule of
the Agreement.
Unrefuted evidence contained in the record does not support the allegation
that the bungalows were "tailor made" for carrier. Furthermore, based on the
whole record we are not convinced that the work such as is involved here is
work reserved by the Scope Rule; therefore, the claim will be denied.
11792-21
31
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
That the Agreement was not violated.
AWARD
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of THIRD DIVISION
ATTEST: S. H. Schulty
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois this 26th day of October 1963.