NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
(Supplemental)
SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY
(Pacific Lines)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the Southern Pacific Company that:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: On or about November 10, 1960, the Carrier assigned and/or permitted employes not covered by the current Signalmen's Agreement to weld a stainless steel bead on the rails of the west crossover at Swanston, California, west of Mile Post 94. As the only reason for this stainless steel bead is to increase the shunting sensitivity of the track circuit, the Brotherhood's Local Chairman presented a claim on behalf of Messrs. J. E. Whitlock, Jr. and H. W. Feathers, the senior Signalmen in Signal Gang No. 8, for eight hours' pay at their straight time rate of pay. The Local Chairman's original claim of December 30, 1960, to the Signal Supervisor is attached hereto and identified as Brotherhood's Exhibit No. 1. The Signal Supervisor's letter of denial of January 6, 1961, is Brotherhood's Exhibit No. 2.
On January 16, 1961, the Local Chairman advised the Signal Supervisor of the rejection of his decision, then appealed that decision to the Carrier's Superintendent on the same day. The Superintendent's denial of February 2, 1961, is Brotherhood's Exhibit No. 3.
On February 8, 1961, the Local Chairman advised the Superintendent of the rejection of his decision, then referred this matter to the Brotherhood's
Since the Scope Rule does not confer upon claimants an exclusive right to the work involved, there was no violation of the current agreement, and claimants are entitled to no payment under Rule 70.
OPINION OF BOARD: This claim arises by reason of Carrier's assigning work of welding a stainless steel strip, or bead, on the rails at various road crossings to Maintenance of Way personnel. The Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen argue that such work belongs to Signalmen under a Scope Rule which includes the phrase "and all other work that is generally recognized as signal work."
We have considered this issue under a similar face situation in Award 13181. Therein we denied the claim, holding that the work involved had been traditionally performed by other than Signalmen. The holding in that case is clearly applicable to this case, and the reasoning in that case is hereby adopted in this opinion.
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