NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Levi M. Hall, Referee
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
TRANSPORTATION-COMMUNICATION EMPLOYEES UNION
(Formerly The Order of Railroad Telegraphers)
THE PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of The
Order of Railroad Telegraphers on the Pennsylvania Railroad .that:
1. Carrier violated and continues to violate the existing agreement between the parties, when effective 4:00 P. M., Friday, March
18, 1960, the Carrier arbitrarily abolished the Assistant Wire Chief's
position at Union Block Office, Terre Haute, Indiana, without conference or agreement and the Carrier has removed and is causing
to be dismantled and removed all testing equipmnt, Wheatstone
Bridge (removed Friday, March 4, 1960), Radarscope, Voltmeter,
Testing Board and other equipment necessary to be used in conjunction with the prescribed duties of the Assistant Wire Chief whose
primary duties are: Must be qualified to test wires, carrier equipment and balance duplex equipment, use testing equipment, make
insulation and transmission measurements and test and adjust polar
relays.
2. The Carrier violated and continues to violate the existing
agreement between the parties by arbitrarily causing and delegating
the prescribed duties and the work formerly performed by the Assistant Wire Chief at Union Block Office, to T & S Department employes who are not covered by the Telegraphers' Agreement as
follows:
(a) At Union Block Office, a test board and other equipment
similar to that used by the AWC is located in another room in this
building and is used by the T & S employes in the same manner that
said equipment was .being used formerly by the AWC, which is
being dismantled and removed by the T & S employes.
(b) On the Crawfordville and Peoria Branch Lines, the T & S
employes do the testing, patching, balancing and adjusting. This
work was formerly performed by the AWC at Union Block Office.
[535]
14168-2
536
The AWC position at Union Block Office is a position of the
employes covered by the Agreement for the government of Telegraph
Department employes. This position has been abolished but the
work remains to be performed in fact, therefore, the Carrier has
violated the Scope of the Agreement and shall be required to compensate the following Telegraph Department employes named herein
the equivalent of the time and one-half rate of the AWC position
at Union Block Station for not being called and used to perform the
required service on their rest days:
Tuesday - 3/29/60 R. R. Sexton, Incumbent - Union 2nd Trick
Wednesday - 3/30/60 R. R. Sexton, - Union 2nd Trick
Thursday - 3/31/60 J. Watson, - Preston Relief
Monday - 4/ 4/60 R. L. Tingley, - Vigo 2nd Trick
Wednesday - 4/ 6/60 A. L. Harrold, - Union 2nd Trick
Monday - 4/11/60 R. L. Tingley, - Vigo 2nd Trick
Wednesday - 4/13/60 D. L. Davis, " - Preston 3rd Trick
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The facts in this dispute are
fairly laid out in the following correspondence exchanged by the parties in
the course of handling the claim on the property.
"Terre Haute, Indiana
May 16, 1960
Mr. L. W. Huey
PTM & SO
Room 310, Union Station
Indianapolis, Indiana
Re: Various denials, relative to
abolishment of AWC position,
Union.
Dear Sir:
This will acknowledge receipt of your letters of denial, wherein
you have submitted the following reason for disallowance of the
instant claims, 'Our records indicate that all work performed was
performed by a member of the O.R.T., Organization, therefore the
claim is denied.'
This is to advise you that our records indicate that employes
not covered by our agreement and who are not members of our
Organization did perform the work, therefore your denials are wholly
unsatisfactory and unacceptable to the employes and are hereby
rejected.
This case will be appealed from your decision to the Supt.-ofPersonnel and will be listed for discussion at our next meeting
scheduled for Friday, June 10, 1960.
Yours very truly,
/s/ J. Watson
DC SW-2"
14168-2s
562
2. Carrier asserts that no claim can possibly be sustained for March 31,
April 6, and 13, 1960, because the Employes have presented nothing to show
what work, if any was performed by Signal Maintainers on said dates.
III. Under The Railway Labor Act, The National Railroad Adjustment Board, Third Division, Is Required To Give Effect To The
Said Agreement, And To Decide The Present Dispute In Accordance Therewith.
It is respectfully submitted that the National Railroad Adjustment Board,
Third Division, is required by the Railway Labor Act, to give effect to the
said Agreement and to decide the present dispute in accordance therewith.
The Railway Labor Act, in Section 3, First, subsection (i), confers upon
the National Railroad Adjustment Board the power to hear and determine
disputes growing out of "grievances or out of the interpretation or application of agreements concerning rates of pay, rules or working conditions."
The National Railroad Adjustment Board is empowered only to decide the
said dispute in accordance with the Agreement between the parties to it.
To grant the claim of the Employes in this case would require the Board to
disregard the Agreement between the parties hereto and impose upon the
Carrier conditions of employment and obligation and reference thereto not
agreed upon by the parties to this dispute. The Board has no jurisdiction
or authority to take any such action.
CONCLUSION
The Carrier has shown that no provisions of the Rules Agreement were
violated, and the Claimants are not entitled to the compensation which they
claim.
Therefore, the Carrier respectfully submits that your Honorable Board
should deny the claim of the Employes in this matter.
(Exhibits not reproduced.)
OPINION OF BOARD:
It is the contention of Claimants that the Assistant Wire Chief's position at Union Block Office located at Terre Haute,
Indiana, is a position of the employes' covered by the Telegraphers' Agreement; that on March 4, 1960, all of the necessary equipment used in connection with the prescribed duties of the Assistant Wire Chief was removed
from the Union Block Office at Terre Haute to the "GY" Telegraph Office
in Indianapolis, Indiana; that on March 18, 1960, the position of Assistant
Wire Chief at Terre Haute was abolished; it is their further contention that
there was work remaining to be performed and, in fact, was performed by
T&S Department employes not covered by the existing Agreement and having
no right to perform the work belonging exclusively to the Assistant Wire
Chief at Terre Haute.
The Carrier denies that the T&S Department employes were performing
any service which formerly accrued to the Assistant Wire Chief at Terre
Haute; that
there was no test equipment remaining at the "Union" Block
Station at Terre Haute on the dates set forth in the Statement of Claim,"
that the work formerly done by the Assistant Wire Chief was done, subsequently, by the Wire Chief at "GY" Telegraph Office in Indianapolis; that
T&S employes cooperated with the Wire Chief at Indianapolis in order to
locate line difficulty; that the T&S Maintainers performed their duties, as
they had done for many years, to repair lines; that the work performed by
14168-2s
563
T&S employes on the dates in question was incidental to and in connection
with the maintenance of the line.
It is Claimants contention that the work done was incidental to and
in connection with the operation of lines and that such work belonged to
telegraphers under their Agreement.
The Scope Rule involved is general in nature and Claimants must support their claim that the Maintainers, Signal Department employes, performed
work which had been done, exclusively, by the Assistant Wire Chief at Union
Block Station. It could not be de.nonstrated that the T&S employes used
any of the equipment that had been used in connection with prescribed duties
of the Assistant Wire Chief at Terre Haute as that equipment had been removed to the "GY" station at Indianapolis prior to the alleged violations.
Beyond a mere assertion by Petitioner that the work performed was incidental
to and in connection with the operation of lines the record is quite unsatisfactory in the attempt to establish that the work performed by T&S employes
fell into that category.
In Award 3524 - (Carter) we find the declaration of a principle governing in cases of this nature:
"It is the contention of the Organization that the work of the
telegraphers at the 'SB' Relay Office before the abolition of the
telegraphers' positions consisted of communication work by Morse
telegraph and by telephone, the testing and patching of telegraph
and telephone wires, and the balancing of the terminal telegraph
repeater line on which teletype printer machines are located. The
progressive development and use of the telephone in railroad operations has contributed greatly to the confusion which has grown up
in attempting to differentiate what is and what is not communication
work belonging to telegraphers under the scope rule of their Agreement. We think it is established as a general proposition that telephone communications consisting of messages and reports of record
belong to the telegraphers by virtue of the scope rule of the Telegraphers' Agreement. The Carrier contends that testing, patching
and balancing do not belong exclusively to the telegraphers. In this
respect, we are of the opinion that testing, patching and balancing
is work belonging exclusively to the telegraphers when it is incidental to and done in connection with the operation of lines, either
telegraph or telephone, in performing work belonging to the telegraphers under their Agreement. On the other hand, such work in
not that of the telegrapher when done by Telegraph and Signal Maintainers incidental to and in connection with the maintenance of lines.
With these general rules in mind, we will consider the particular
facts that brought about this dispute." (Emphasis ours.)
This was a case involving the same parties as here.
Award 13156-(McGovern) is another award arising on this same
property. In the dispute involved therein the Assistant Wire Chief at Union,
Terre Haute, Indiana, requested payment of a call because of a T&S Maintainer making certain tests and removing patch cords that had been put up
by the Assistant Wire Chief. After citing Award 3524 it was stated:
"We think that the work done in this case by the C&S maintainer was 'incidental to and in connection with the maintenance of
14168--30
564
lines.'
We
think further that the reasoning . . . in the above quotation . . is sound and logical. This in addition to the broad,
general nature of the Telegraphers' Scope Rule and in the absence
of evidence to sustain the custom, history and practice doctrine, we
will deny the claim."
In the following awards, the principle in Award 3624 as cited in this
Opinion was enunciated in support of denial awards-Award 4880Kelliher;Award 10624 -LaBelle.
Certain sustaining awards were submitted by the Organization but all
of them involved the performance of telegrapher duties by clerks and it was
held that such work was not incidental to a clerical position. They
are not
applicable here.
From an examination of the record the Board is convinced that wire
trouble was being experienced and that the service of T&S Department employes were necessary and that the work performed by them was incidental
to and in connection with the maintenance of the lines.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the
whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:
That the parties waived oral hearing;
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 Agreement has not been violated.
AWARD
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of THIRD DIVISION
ATTEST: S. H. Schulty
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day of February 1966.