NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
(Supplemental)
Nathan Engelstein, Referee
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD SIGNALMEN
NEW ORLEANS AND NORTHEASTERN
RAILROAD COMPANY
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the Southern Railway Company et al. that:
(a) The Carrier violated and continues to violate the current Signalmen's Agreement when they contract or otherwise farm out that
part of recognized signal work being done at Meridian, Miss.,
N.O.&N.E. Division, by persons not covered and who hold no seniority
or other rights under the Signalmen's Agreement.
(b) Mr. V. P. Marshall, Signal Maintainer, Meridian, Miss., et al.,
who would be entitled to perform the signal work done by Contractor
and his forces, be compensated at their respective rates of pay on
a proportionate basis for all time (man-hours) worked by persons
not covered and who hold no seniority or other rights under the
Signalmen's Agreement, in performing recognized signal work on the
car-repair-track facilities at Meridian, Miss. Claim to begin on first
day that outside persons performed any signal work, or February
21, 1959, and continue thereafter so long as the Contractor and his
forces are permitted to perform recognized signal work, or until a
proper correction is made and signal forces permitted to perform the
signal work.
(c) Each furloughed signal employe who retains seniority rights
be considered as available and entitled to first consideration for the
extra work in his respective class, and compensated as indicated in
item (b) above, for whatever signal work he would be due with
respect to this claim. (Carrier's file SG-13815.)
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The work involved in this dispute was performed on what is referred to as the N. 0. & N. E. Division of the
Southern Railway System. Hereinafter, any reference we make to the "Carrier"
will not necessarily be confined to the New Orleans and Northeastern Railroad
Company (N. 0. & N. E.), but will apply to the entire Southern Railway
System, as covered by the current Signalmen's Agreement in effect on this
L647]
12527--27
673
has not been adversely affected in any manner whatsoever. He could not, by
the strained interpretation which the Brotherhood here attempts to have
placed upon the effective Signalmen's Agreement, have performed the work
of a signal maintainer on his regular assignment and the work of signalman in making, or assisting in making, the referred to installation of the
electrical equipment at Meridian. On the basis of the above-referred to
awards, claim on his behalf should be denied for this reason, if for no
other and there are others.
CONCLUSION
Carrier
has shown conclusively that:
(a) The claim and demand which the Brotherhood here attempts
to assert are barred, in that the Brotherhood has not complied with
the law, the Rules of Procedure of the Adjustment Board or the
effective agreement in evidence. In this situation, the Board has
no jurisdiction over the claim and demand and should dismiss them
for want of jurisdiction.
(b) The effective Signalmen's Agreement was not violated as
alleged, and the claim and demand here made are not supported
by it. The involved work was not "signal work" or "generally recognized signal work"; nor was there a signal system involved in the
installation made at the car repair track at Meridian. To the contrary, the involved work was purely electrical work and an electrical
contractor was engaged to perform it. It was electrical work on a
car repair facility-a Mechanical Department operation. It was nut
a Signal and Electrical Department operation.
(c) The principles of prior awards of the Board fully support the
Carrier's action in contracting the here involved work. Furthermore,
the scope rule of the agreement in evidence recognizes in clear,
unambiguous language the management's right to contract large
installations of the type here involved in connection with the performance of new work. The construction project at Meridian, Miss., was,
without question, new work.
(d) The named claimant was on duty and under pay. Prior
awards of the Board have denied claims without even considering
the merits of same in situations where, as here, the claimant was
on duty.
The claim and demand, being barred, should be dismissed by the Board
for want of jurisdiction. However, if, despite this fact, the Board assumes
jurisdiction, it cannot do other than make a denial award, for an award of
any other type would be contrary not only to the Railway Labor Act and
the Rules of Procedure of the Adjustment Board, but to the agreement in
evidence as well.
OPINION OF BOARD:
Awards Nos. 11369, 11162, and 11612 held that
the work in question was not signalmen's work.
We concur in those opinions and accordingly hold
that Carrier had the
right to contract out the work.
12527-23
674
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
The Agreement of the parties 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 21st day of May 1964.