THIRD DIVISION
(Supplemental)
(1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it assigned forces employed by the Morrison-Knuteson Company to scale the side of a cut at Mile Post 159.5.
(3) Bulldozer Operators A. R. Mikaelson, G. W. Payne, M. C. Thrasher, D. R. Hart and O. George each be allowed pay at their respective straight-time rates for an equal proportionate share of the total number of man-hours consumed by the contractor's Bulldozer Operator in performing work on the project referred to in Part (1) of this claim.
(4) Truck Drivers P. E. Rodriquez, L. Blanco, C. E. Sullivan, L. M. Sanchez, J. E. Straub, W. Boom, R. L. Coe, H. L. Nix, W. W. DeBeaord and F. S. Hart each be allowed pay at their respective straight-time rates for an equal proportionate share of the total number of man-hours consumed by the contractor's truck drivers in performing work on the project referred to in Part (1) of this claim.
As will be noted, that rule merely names the classes of employes whose rates of pay, hours of service, and working conditions, are governed by the rules of the current agreement. It does not make any reference to work or to the specific duties that may be required by those classes of employes, nor does it set forth the duties that will be reserved to or that will be exclusively performed by the classes of employes named. As a matter of fact, throughout the life of the current agreement and preceding agreements, work of the magnitude and character here involved has never been considered exclusively reserved by the Scope Rule to employes covered by the current agreement. As evidence thereof there is attached as Carrier's Exhibit "C", a statement showing a partial list of grading and bridge work performed by contract during the years 1951 to and including a portion of 1955, to which no exception was taken by petitioner.
The claim in this docket is entirely lacking in either merit or agreement support and carrier therefore requests that said claim be denied.
All data herein submitted have been presented to the duly authorized representative of the employes and are made a part of the particular question in dispute. The carrier reserves the right if and when it is furnished with the submission which has been or will be filed ex parte by the petitioner in this case, to make such further answer as may be necessary in relation to all allegations and claims as may be advanced by the petitioner in such submission, which cannot be forecast by the carrier at this time and have not been answered in this, the carrier's initial submission.
OPINION OF BOARD: This claim arose out of the same contract job and presents a record and issues which are similar to those in Award 11846. On this basis, and for the reasons stated therein, we reach the same conclusions as in Award 11846 and deny this claim.
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