NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

THIRD DIVISION






PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD SIGNALMEN

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:


(a) The Southern Pacific Company violated the current Signalmen's Agreement, effective April 1, 1947 (reprinted April 1, 1958 including revisions) when it failed and/or declined to apply the Scope Rule or other provisions of the Agreement, in not assigning recognized signal work to employes of the Signal Department on March 28, 29, 30, 31, April 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20. 21, 22, 25. 26, 27, 28, 29, May 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 23, 1960. Such work being the work performed by the Water Service and Electrical Department employes in the maintaining of air compressors at the retarder yard in Eugene Yard, Eugene, Oregon.


(b) Mr. D. G. Meyers, senior furloughed Signalman, be allowed two (2) hours at the straight time rate of Signal Maintainer, Centralized Traffic Control area, for each of the before mentioned dates. [Carrier's file: SIG 152-751


EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Beginning on or about May 16, 1956, the Carrier assigned its Water Service Department employes to install air compressors and air lines that were to be used exclusively for the operation of a new car retarder system at Eugene, Oregon. Upon learning that employes not covered by the Signalmen's Agreement were installing part of a car retarder system, the Local Chairman filed a claim for compensation on behalf of signal employes because the Scope of the Signalmen's Agreement specifically covers the construction, reconstruction, installation, maintenance, testing, inspecting and repair of car retarder systems. That claim was progressed up to and including the Third Division of the National Railroad Adjustment Board, where it was assigned Docket No. SG-9805.


The Carrier subsequently assigned its Water Service Department and Electrical Department to employ one man each for approximately one hour each day in the maintenance of the air compressors. Inasmuch as the air compressors were being used exclusively for the operation of the car retarder system, the Local Chairman filed claims on behalf of signal employes covered by the Signalmen's Agreement. The claim involved herein is on behalf of the



13214-14 7,18

In that case, as it is in this Docket, it was Carrier's position that air compressors which are the source of power for the involved car retarder installation are not an integral part of that installation. In Carrier's view, that is the controlling issue in this case and it has already been settled against the position taken by Petitioner. It has been settled on this property by the abandoned claims in evidence as Carrier's Exhibits "J" and "li", respectively, and it has been settled as a general proposition in Award 8070. The pertinent portion of Award 8070 which pin points the issue here in dispute, is as follows:




There can be no question that the installation and maintenance of air compressors involved in this case was "work on the source of power for the car retarders back beyond the point of utilization". In addition to Award 8070, the Divisions' attention is directed to its Awards 8288 and 8291 which also support Carrier's position in this case.


In view of the foregoing, it is clear that the Scope Rule of the current agreement does not cover the work here claimed, and that being so, no other previsions of the current agreement can have application.


The work here claimed is not reserved to Signalmen by Agreement or other authority on this property; it is not now and has not been the practice for such work to be performed by Signalmen and Petitioner, in pursuing this and similar claims, is attempting to secure through an Award of this Division a new rule over and above that agreed to by the parties. The principle is well-established that it is not the function of this Board to modify an existing rule or supply a new rule where none exists.






OPINION OF BOARD: Award 10730, adopted August 3, 1962, adjudicated a claim that certain Signalmen of this Carrier be "allowed an adjustment in pay for an amount of time . . equal to that required by an employe not covered by the Signalmen's Agreement to perform the work of installing, repairing and maintaining the air compressors and air line" of the car retarder system at Eugene, Oregon "since May 16, 1956." We ruled that the involved work was reserved exclusively to the Signalmen by their Agreement with Carrier, we allowed nominal damages to part of the named Claimants and denied any payment to the other Claimants. We further noted that:




The Claimant in this docket is a Siggnalman who was not named as a Claimant in Award 10730, but who now seeks an allowance for time spent subsequent to May 16, 1956, and prior to the adoption of Award 10730 by an employe not covered by the Signalmens' Agreement in doing maintenance and repair work on the same air compressor and air line. Award 10730 disposed of the issues presented and this claim must be dismissed.

13214--15 739

 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










Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 13th day of January, 1966.