saes
Award No. 14279
Docket No. SG-14162
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
(Supplemental)
Don Harr, 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 Southern Pacific Company violated the current Signalmen's Agreement effective April 1, 1947 (reprinted April 1, 1958
including revisions) particularly the Scope, Hours of Service, Call,
Bulletin and Rule 70, when it allowed employes of the Communications Department to install and maintain the Harmon Carrier Transmitter used in connection with the Scanning Equipment for the Hot
Box Detector.
(b) Mr. J. M. Edwards and Mr. E. G. White be paid eight (8)
hours each at their respective rates of pay account Communications
Department employes installing said Harmon Carrier Transmitter
and making wiring changes in the relay racks in the relay shelter for
the Hot Box Detector in the vicinity of Gem, Oregon, and that the
above mentioned employes be paid the same amount of time any
Communication Department employe is used to maintain same until
such time as this work is turned over to Signal Department employes.
(Carrier's File: SIG 152-122)
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: This dispute is based on Carrier's action of assigning other than signal employes to install and maintain
Harmon Carrier Transmitter used in connection with the Scanning equipment
for the Hot Box Detector near Gem, Oregon. The installation was made on or
about May 1, 1962, in the relay shelter for the Hot Box Detector. That relay
shelter is locked with a "signal" lock. During conference on this dispute, the
General Chairman protested the issuance of "signal" keys to the Communications Department employes who perform the disputed maintenance work.
The transmitter in question was installed after the Hot Box Detector,
and for the sole and exclusive function of transmitting information gathered
by the Scanning equipment for the Hot Box Detector at this location. This
information is superimposed on Communications Department line and trans-
current agreement. Claim was denied by Superintendent, Shasta Division, on
June 20, 1962 (Carrier's Exhibit B). Claim was appealed by General Chairman
on July 6, 1962 (Carrier's Exhibit C), and was denied by Assistant Manager
of Personnel on August 31, 1962 (Carrier's Exhibit D).
(Exhibits not reproduced.)
OPINION OF BOARD: On May 1, 1962, two employes of the Communications Department installed a Harmon Carrier Transmitter, a part of a hot,
box detector device, and made necessary wiring changes pertaining thereto in,
relay racks, which were located in the relay shelter near Gem, Oregon. The
installation included connecting the equipment to the communications line
which was utilized to transmit impulses from the Harmon Carrier transmitter
to Klamath Falls Yard.
On June 6, 1962, the Organization's local chairman submitted claims on
behalf of J. M. Edwards and E. G. White for "eight hours each at their respective rates of pay on account of Communication Department employes
installing said Harmon Carrier Transmitter and making wiring changes in
the relay racks in the relay shelter for the Hot Box Detector in the vicinity of
Gem, Oregon." They alleged violation by Carrier of the Scope, Hours of
Service, Call, Bulletin, Rule 70 and other provisions of the current agreement.
The Claim was denied by Superintendent, Shasta Division, on June 20, 1962.
Claim was appealed by the Organization's General Chairman on July 6, 1962,
and was denied by Assistant Manager of Personnel on August 31, 1962.
The Organization claims all work involved in the installation and maintenance of the disputed hot box detector except that involved in the communication line. They argue that the place of the detectors junction with the
communication line should be the dividing point for the work of the two
involved departments.
After a careful review of the record we feel the only question properly
before this Board is whether the claim is supported by past practice under
the "Generally Recognized as Signal Work" provision in the Scope Rule. The
Organization submitted this claim and prosecuted it on the property solely
on the basis that it was supported by past practice at three specific locations
on this one division. During the handling on the property they did not assert
that the involved work is reserved to Signalmen by the portion of the Scope
Rule reading:
. . . detector devices connected with signal system . . : '
This was raised for the first time in the Organization's rebuttal.
Award 13181 (West) states:
"The Brotherhood belatedly attempts to argue that the bead
constitutes a 'detector device connected with the signal system.'
However, the entire discussion on the property and in the submissions to this Board revolved around the inclusion of this work as
a part of the 'track circuit: We are of the opinion that it would be
improper to completely deviate from the issues argued on the
property and submitted to this Board. Therefore, we refrain from
ruling as to the merits of this issue."
See also Awards 13182, 13183 and 13184 (West). These four awards
involve the same parties as this docket.
14279 3
In order to support their position the Organization must allege and
prove that this work has been done system-wide exclusively by Signalmen.
Award 11526 (Dolnick) states:
"The Agreement between the parties is system-wide. It is not
confined solely to Sacramento or to West Oakland or to any one of
the Carrier's Divisions. It includes them all. While it is true that the
Employes do not have access to all of Carrier's records, and that it is
sometimes difficult to know all that is happening in the system, it is
nevertheless, the obligation of the Employes to make certain that
the work belonging to Signalmen is specifically set out in the Agreement. If it is not so set out, then the work belongs to them only if
by practice, custom and usage of on the property, work has been
done system-wide exclusively by Signalmen. See Awards 8207
(McCoy), 5404 (Parker), 7806 (Corey) and 4208 (Robertson).
We cannot agree with the Employes that the work belongs to
Signalmen at West Oakland even if meters were repaired by contractors for other Shops or for other Divisions. This is not the position
of this Board. We have consistently held to the contrary."
See also 13347 (Hutchins), 11799, 11800, 11801, 12073 (Dolnick).
The Organization based their claim on the fact that at three other
locations on this single division this type of work had been performed by
Signalmen. We do not believe the Organization has sustained the burden of
proving their right to this work under a past system-wide practice.
For these reasons we will deny the Claim.
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 Carrier did not violate the Agreement.
AWARD
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of THIRD DIVISION
ATTEST: S. H. Schulty
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 31st day of March 1966.
Keenan Printing Co., Chicago, Ill. Printed in U.S.A.
14279 4