THIRD DIVISION
(Supplemental)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the Florida East Coast Railway Company that:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: On March 6, 1962, there were an unusual number of wood fires on the Railway, which resulted in damage to the 4400 volt transmission line in various locations. Inspector U. D. Payne, an Inspector, who is an employe not covered by the Signalmen's Agreement, was informed by the Wire Chief at 1:20 P. M., on that date, that the power was off between Fort Pierce and Melbourne, Florida.
One of the Claimants, Mr. Hixson (erroneously misspelled in our notice of February 13), who is the regularly assigned Maintainer on this section, was on the telephone and advised the Wire Chief and Inspector Payne that he had patrolled the line between Fort Pierce and Vero Beach, which was 14 miles of the total of 48 miles of line on which the power was off. Mr. Payne decided that the power should be restored on that part of the line which had already been patrolled. In order to do this he instructed Maintainer Hixson to open the switches at Vero Beach. The Inspector, in turn, closed the switches located at Fort Pierce, after Maintainer Hixson informed him that the switches at Vero Beach were open.
The Carrier first states that this action was taken by Inspector Payne as a consequence of an emergency during the regular work period of
3. The Railway, of course, is solely responsible for the safe conditions on its road and in discharging its responsibility has the right to make such tests as to be assured and to know that conditions and equipment on its property are safe, or, as stated by the Third Division in Award 8049:
Inspector Payne employed a prescribed test check-out procedure in an effort to determine the location of the power line failure. His was a function attaching to any signal supervisory representative of the Railway, and was certainly not one exclusively accorded under the Scope Rule, or any other rule of the Signalmen's Agreement, to any other class of employes in the Communications-Signal Department. Manifestly, therefore, he performed a service incidental to his position which did not amount to a violation of the Signalmen's Agreement, as alleged by the Employes, or, as stated by the Third Division in resolving a comparable dispute in Award 6221 involving the work of a Signal Supervisor:
OPINION OF BOARD: On March 6, 1962, an unusual number of forest fires on Carrier's right of way caused the 4400 volt transmission line of the signal system to be inoperative, per this record, from Fort Pierce to Melbourne, Florida.
The Claimants, a Maintainer and a Maintainer's Helper, were directed to patrol the line northward. After reaching Vero Beach, 14 miles north of Fort Pierce, Claimants reported seeing no breaks in the line. The Inspector at Fort Pierce, in a telephone conversation with the Maintainer and Wire Chief, directed the former to open the disconnect switch at Vero Beachthereafter, the Inspector closed the disconnect switch at Fort Pierce. This latter action showed the line to be operative to Vero Beach-it also caused power to flow from the substation south of Fort Pierce along the line to the disconnect point, lighting the signals that far north, but leaving the remaining distance to Melbourne dark.
Petitioner's allegation and claim is that the Inspector's act of closing the disconnect switch was the work of Claimants. It seeks compensation, at overtime rates, for them for the work in question. The record contains evidence that Claimants worked approximately four hours overtime on the day involved.
Carrier's answer to the claim submitted was to cite a letter of understanding, dated March 23, 1948-quoted below-which had been agreed to by the parties, and which, Carrier asserts, permits Inspectors to conduct tests 13944--11 634
and inspections. Additionally, it asserts that the instant act of the Inspector was a test of the signal system as was contemplated and covered in the letter of understanding, Le.:
We are of the opinion that while the act of closing a disconnect switch should normally be the work of either signalmen or maintainers, or both, the facts presented herein disclose that such act could also be performed by the Inspector in this instance. We find no violation of the agreement, and will, therefore, deny the claim, with an admonition to Carrier to quote correctly from our opinions in the future.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, 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