THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY
(Coast Lines)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company that:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: This dispute areas as a result of the Carrier unilaterally removing the painting of clearance markers in signal, (bonded), territory from the Scope of the Signalmen's Agreement and requiring employes other than those covered by that Agreement to perform this work. The Carrier's unilateral action took place early in 1960. Signal forces on this Carrier, for as may years as our records exist, have painted clearance markers in signal territory and have been held responsible for their correct location. In fact, this Carrier has reprimanded signal employes for failing to properly locate these markers in the past.
Clearance markers in nonsignaled or unbonded territory merely mark the point in a siding where a car will clear mainline train movements, whereas, clearance markers in signal territory mark the end of a signal track circuit, which the Signal Section of the Association of American Railroads recognizes as the foundation of any signal system. In both instances, clearance markers consist of markings painted on rails and ties.
Clearance markers in unsignaled territory may be correctly located by merely measuring distances between the center of the mainline and center of a point in a siding. However, clearance markers in signaled territory mark the end of a signal track circuit and must be located by an employe familiar with signal track circuits. Signal forces are the only employes on this Carrier familiar with signal track circuits.
OPINION OF BOARD: During July and August 1960 a B&B paint gang, represented by the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes was engaged in repainting all roadway signs in the territory between Fallbrook Junction and San Diego on the Fourth District of the Carrier's Los Angeles Division. A Claim was filed by the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen alleging that certain of the markers painted were clearance markers in signal track circuit territory and thus within the province of Signalmen and should have been painted by them.
This case is similar on the merits to that decided by Referee Kornblum in Award Number 13304, and there is no need to reiterate the argument of parties advanced therein. In that award, Referee Kornblum found that painting of clearance markers in bonded territory had not been proven to be exclusively performed by employes covered by the Signalmen's Agreement, and accordingly denied the claim.
Referee Kornblum did reserve judgment on similar work arising in the Los Angeles Division which is currently before us. The Los Angeles case is different in that the Organization contends that the painting of clearance markers was done exclusively by Signalmen, while the Carrier asserts that this was not the case. Even if the work were exclusive to the Signalmen on bonded territory in the Los Angeles Division, it is the well established reasoning of this Board that exclusivity can not be sustained on the basis of local variances in practice but must be shown to be system wide. In the instant case the evidence is that any such exclusive practice is limited to the Los Angeles Division, and is contrary to the practice throughout the rest of the system.
Here the evidence is that it was not done system-wide exclusively by Signalmen and the claim must therefore be denied.
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