On or about April 3, 1964, a train order transmitter was installed and is being maintained by other than Signal Department employes at Washington Court House, Ohio.
Eight hours' time was consumed by each of three B&B Department employes in traveling to and from Dayton, Ohio, and installing the train order transmitter.
Previous installations and maintenance of train order transmitters on this and other seniority districts have been performed by Signal Department employes at 'J' Tower, Willard, Galatea, Bates, Lima, Piqua, New River Jet., Hamilton and Washington Court House, Ohio, Cottage Grove and West Dana, Ind., and Tuscola, Ill., commencing in 1948 and thereafter.
It is the position of the employes that by viture [sic] of the past practice, the installation and maintenance of the train order transmitter at Washington Court House, Ohio, should have been assigned to Signal Department employes as generally recognized signal work.
On April 3, 1964, a Train Order Transmitter was installed at Washington Court House, Ohio, by three B&B employes. These employes were at this location doing other work and while here each worked one hour erecting transmitter. Prior to this date one B&B employe spent 4 hours at Dayton, Ohio, making concrete foundation for transmitter. This was the first transmitter ever installed at this location.
It is the position of Management that the making of the concrete foundation, its installation and the installation of the metal Train Order Transmitter is work that belongs to B&B Department Employes.
This type of work is not covered in the Scope portion of the Agreement and therefore the claim is declined."
On or about April 13, 1964, a train order transmitter was installed and is being maintained by other than Signal Department employes at Cottage Grove, Indiana.
It is the position of the employes, that by virtue of the past practice, the installation and maintenance of the train order transmitter at Cottage Grove, Ind,, should have been assigned to Signal Department employes as generally recognized signal work.
On April 3, 1964, a Train Order Transmitter was installed at Washington Court House, Ohio, by three B&B employes. These employes were at this location doing other work and while here each worked one hour erecting transmitter. Prior to this date one B&B employe spent 4 hours at Dayton, Ohio, making concrete foundation for transmitter. This was the first transmitter ever installed at this location.
It is the position of Management that the making of the concrete foundation, its installation and the installation of the metal Train Order Transmitter is work that belongs to B&B Department Employes.
This type of work is not covered in the Scope portion of the Agreement and therefore the claim is declined."
This Agreement governs the rate of pay, hours of service and working conditions of all employes classified in Article I of
(a) Signals including electric locks, relays and all other apparatus considered as a part of the signal system, excluding signal bridges and cantilevers.
(h) Spring switches where point locked or signal protected, excluding work normally performed by track forces.
No employes other than those classified herein will be required or permitted, except in an emergency, to perform any of the signal work described herein except that signal supervisory and signal engineering forces will continue in their supervisory capacity to make such tests and inspections of all signal apparatus and circuits as may be necessary to insure that the work is installed correctly and properly maintained. The term `emergency' as used herein is understood to mean the period of time between the discovery of a condition requiring prompt action and the time an employe covered by this Agreement can be made available."
The Scope Rule does not contain any express reference to the work in dispute in this case.
A train order transmitter consists of a metal pole which is located in an upright position near the track and is used for the purpose of delivering written train orders or other written messages to employes on moving trains. The written train order is tied in a string that is in the form of a loop and placed in a detachable train order hoop. The hoop has an extended shaft, that is placed in a bracket on the train order transmitter. Train orders are placed in the hoops by means of strings tied in such fashion that trainmen can reach out and secure them easily. Its purpose is to permit train crews to secure train orders from cabooses while moving or proceeding through the area past the transmitter.
There is no dispute as to the material facts in this case. The issue is whether the installation of the train order transmitters by employes other than those covered by the Brotherhood's Agreement violates that agreement.
The Brotherhood maintains that train order transmitters are a part of the signal system and that by the specific and explicit terms of the agreement the work of installing them are reserved exclusively to them. While the Scope Rule is specific in covering the installation, maintenance and repair of signals and all other apparatus considered as part of the signal system, it makes no mention of train order transmitters. It does not define signals nor does it define apparatus that can be considered as a part of the signal system. It does not include or exclude train order transmitters.
In view of the fact that the Scope Rule is silent and does not make mention of train order transmitters, the words "All other work generally recognized as signal work" may be construed either to include or exclude train order transmitters. The language of the rule being ambiguoug, we may look to past practices or customs in an endeavor to ascertain the intent of the parties to the Agreement.
The Brotherhood in support of its contention states that train order transmitters have previously been installed and maintained by Signal Department at several places commencing with 1948. (See page 16 of Record)
The Carrier in support of its contention states that the transmitter is not an electrical apparatus nor a signal appurtenance; is no part of the signal system and that the prevailing practice on its system with reference to installation and maintenance of train order transmitters has been for Maintenance of Way B&B employes to do this work. (See page 19 of Record)
The Brotherhood has not presented nor introduced into this record that degree of evidence sufficient to establish a consistent practice adequate to support its reading of the Scope Rule. The weight of the evidence submitted impels the conclusion that on the system of the Carrier it has been the past practice for the disputed work to be done by employes not covered by the Brotherhood's Agreement.
Since the subject Agreement does not expressly confer jurisdiction over the disputed work exclusively to signal employes, and in view of the practice as here found, it follows that the Brotherhood does not have exclusive jurisdiction over the said work. A denial of the claims are therefore warranted.