THIRD DIVISION
(Supplemental)
THE CINCINNATI, NEW ORLEANS AND TEXAS PACIFIC
RAILWAY COMPANY
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the Southern Railway Company et al, that:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: On September 13, October 20 and October 21, 1958, Assistant Signal Supervisor L. E. Hitt, Jr., used a company truck assigned to Mr. J. P. Swinney, Signal Maintainer with headquarters at Oakdale, Tennessee, for the purpose of loading, handling and delivering a number of coils of signal line wire to various points along the line between Chattanooga, Tenn. and Somerset, Ky. The signal line wire was delivered to the signal forces at the various points for immediate use on the job in making repairs to the signal pole line. Assistant Signal Supervisor Hitt also picked up a paint spray at Roddy, Tennessee, and delivered the spray to Somerset, Ky.
Inasmuch as signal material and equipment was taken from a signal camp car (material car) at Oakdale and delivered to signal field forces for immediate use on the job, a claim reading as follows was filed with Mr. L. C. Brown, Signal and Electrical Superintendent, on October 24, 1958, by General Chair. man E. C. Melton, in behalf of Signal Maintainer Swinney for the time spent by Assistant Signal Supervisor Hitt in performing the Signalmen's scope work of hauling and handling signal material:
dence has been in effect. These incidents, as evidenced by the affidavits attached hereto and made a part hereof, clearly reflect the intent and understanding of the parties to the agreement. Moreover, no language in the agreement supports the claim and demand here made. The Brotherhood, having long since conceded the point here at issue, cannot now be heard to complain. The agreement was not violated.
The claim and demand being without basis and unsupported by the agreement in evidence, the Board is left with no alternative but to make a denial award.
OPINION OF BOARD: The Board is asked to resolve the question: Does delivery of signal materials in a Carrier's truck by L. E. Hitt, Jr. Assistant Signal and Electrical Supervisor of Carrier constitute a violation of the Scope Rule of that Agreement between the parties dated February 16, 1948 as revised October 23, 1953?
Claim has been made that it does and that J. P. Swinney, a Signal Maintainer has been damaged as a result.
Careful consideration has been given to the content of Rule 1, the Scope Rule and to the facts and circumstances of this claim.
Note has also been made of the following excerpt of Carrier's letter to General Chairman of December 12, 1958:
The following is not pertinent to the decision of the case but claim here is brought by Signal Maintainer, J. P. Swinney. A consideration of the job description of signal Maintainer, Article II, Rule 2 (d) of the agreement leaves some doubt if this Claimant would have performed the work the subject of this claim. Rule 2 (f) defines Signal Helper as one " . . . handling materials . . . "
Rule 42 cited in this case by Claimant as authority is not relevent to the .question.
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; 12188-zz 950