NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
(Supplemental)
Nathan Engelstein, Referee
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 Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement
effective April 1, 1947 (Reprinted April 1, 1958 including revisions),
particularly the Scope Rule and Rule 70.
(b) The following employes in Signal Gang No. 11 be paid the
same number of hours at the straight-time rate as was required by
employes not covered by the Signalmen's Agreement since the work
on the switch heater was started and continuing until it is completed:
J. P. Dodson, Signal Foreman; B. G. Fry, Leading Signalman; R. C.
Logan, R. C. Morey, and R. G. Poulson, Signalmen; M. J. Butterly,
A. L. Hanson, and A. F. Green, Assistant Signalmen.
[Carrier's File: S-97-9-101]
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: During October, 1958, the Carrier assigned employes who are not covered by the Signalmen's Agreement
to install a switch heater at the No. 54 switch at Norden Interlocking. Switch
No. 54 is an electric switch and is a part of the Norden Interlocking.
The heater is a circulating hot water type operated from an automatic
oil-fired boiler, and it was installed for the purpose of melting ice and
snow from this power-operated interlocking switch.
The maintenance of way employes who performed the disputed work
did so intermittently and the record does not indicate how much time these
employes have spent working on this heater since the beginning of the
installation.
Under date of February 15, 1959, Mr. L. H. Carmichael, Local Chairman,
presented the following claim to Mr. A. C. Murphy, Signal Supervisor:
[281]
13651-16
296
CONCLUSION
Carrier requests that the claim be denied.
(Exhibits not reproduced.)
OPINION OF BOARD:
This docket was referred to the National Disputes Committee established by Memorandum Agreement dated May 31, 1963,
to decide disputes involving interpretations on applications of certain stated
provisions of specified National Non-operating Employe Agreements. On April
22, 1965, that Committee rendered the following Findings and Decision (NDG
Decision 21):
"FINDINGS: (ART. V) The above claim was presented in writing
to the officer of the Carrier authorized to receive same in letter dated
February 15, 1959. The Carrier contends before the Third Division
that the claim is barred with respect to dates prior to December 17,
1958 (60 days prior to filing of the claim) by reason of the provision
of Paragraph 3 of Article V of the Agreement of August 21, 1954 that
'no money claim' with respect to an alleged continuing violation `shall
be allowed retroactively for more than 60 days prior to the filing
thereof.' The employes in their rebuttal submission do not dispute or
otherwise comment on this contention.
The National Disputes Committee rules that the provision of Paragraph 3 of Article V of the August 21, 1954 Agreement-
`However, no monetary claim shall be allowed retroactively for more than 60 days prior to the filing thereof.'
is controlling, and no money claim may be allowed prior to 60 days
preceding the date of filing thereof.
DECISION: No monetary claim may be allowed with respect
to dates prior to December 17, 1958.
This decision disposes of the issues under Article V of the August
21, 1954 Agreement. The docket is returned to the Third Division,
NRAB in accordance with Paragraph 8 of the Memorandum Agreement of May 31, 1963, for disposition with respect to dates subsequent to December 16, 1958."
This claim arose from the installation of a switch heater at No. 54
switch at Norden Interlocking. The Brotherhood takes the position that
Carrier violated the Agreement, particularly the Scope, when it assigned
Maintenance of Way employes to install the switch heater. It contends that
Signal Department employes have always installed switch heaters because
they are part of the signal system.
Carrier denies the claim with the assertion that the heater is not connected with any signal circuit, cannot be turned on or off by remote control,
and must be operated at the location. It also maintains that Maintenance
of Way employes have in the past installed switch heaters not connected
with the signal system.
The record contains numerous assertions and counter-assertions but
lacks evidence to support them. Without sufficient evidence upon which to
base a determination of the issue, the claim is dismissed.
13651-17
297
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
That the Claim should be dismissed.
AWARD
Claim dismissed.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of THIRD DIVISION
ATTEST: S. H. Schulty
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 15th day of June 1965.