NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
(Supplemental)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the Pennsylvania Railroad Company that:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: The Carrier, in December 1961, put in service an instrument case which had been completely wired and fitted by persons not covered by its agreement with the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen. Employes covered by the Signalmen's Agreement have a contract right to perform work of installing and maintaining all signal facilities, and and the Scope Rule specifically includes the wiring of instrument cases.
The instrument case in question was put in place on November 8, 1961, at Arnold, Pennsylvania, and was subsequently placed in service the following month. In ordering cases of this type, the Carrier must furnish the manufacturer complete circuit plans, and the instrument case is then wired, and identifying tags must be placed on each wire. This means that the case can only be used for the particular location for which the case is purchased.
The Carrier purchases the instrument case and the signal apparatus to be used therein, and then the manufacturer proceeds to completely wire and fit the case in accordance with the Carrier's engineering instructions and circuit plans.
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 paries to it. To grant the claim of the Employes in this case would require the Board to disregard the Agreement between the parties thereto and impose upon the Carrier conditions of employment and obligations with 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 there has been no violation of the Scope Rule of the Applicable Agreement in the instant case and that 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.
OPINION OF BOARD: Carrier installed a completely wired relay case for flashing highway crossing protection signals at Arnold, Pennsylvania. This relay case was purchased, completely wired, from the manufacturer, the Union Switch and Signal Company. The case and the wiring was done by that company at its plant. There is no probative evidence that it was manufactured to the Carrier's specifications for a particular location. On the contrary, there is evidence that it was a stock item. It was installed on the property by signal employes of the Carrier who performed all additional wiring and testing necessary to the installation.
Employes contend that Carrier violated the Scope Rule of the Agreement. The pertinent part of this Rule says that the covered Signal Department employes shall be those "engaged in the installation and maintenance of all signals, interlockings, telegraph and telephone office equipment of communicating systems . . . highway crossing protection . . . including the repair and adjustment of telegraph, telephone and signal instrument cases and the maintenance of car retarder systems, and all other work in connection with installation and maintenance thereof that has been generally recognized as telegraph, telephone, or signal work * * * " The basis for the claim is best stated by the Employes in a letter to the Carrier, dated December 12, 1961, from the Local Chairman and it says:
The same parties were involved in Award 4662 where the identical Scope Rule was considered. The basis for that claim was: