NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
(Supplemental)
Thomas J. Kenan, Referee
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD SIGNALMEN
SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the
Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the Southern Railway Company
et al. that:
(a) The Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement
when a contractor and his forces were used on September 18, 19, 27,
and October 1, 1963, for a total of forty (40) hours and thirty (30)
minutes at Mile Post R-104.7 Beltline Boulevard, in or near Columbia,
South Carolina, on the installation of crossing signals.
(b) Messrs. P. G. Lotshaw, Crossing Signal Maintainer-Columbia, South Carolina, and J. L. Holsenback, Jr., Signal MaintainerBlythewood, South Carolina, who were available and did perform
certain parts of the crossing signal installation here involved, be paid
at their respective rates of pay on a proportionate basis for all hours
worked by the contractor and his forces September 18 through
October 1, 1963, and continuing as long as they, or other persons
not covered by the Agreement, are permitted to perform recognized
signal work on the crossing signal installation here involved, or until
the violation is corrected.
[Carrier's File: SG-19462]
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS:
This dispute, like numerous
others from this property which have either been decided by this Division, previously, or are awaiting adjudication, involves signal work which Carrier contracted out to persons not covered by the Signalmen's Agreement. On each of
four (4) different days during the period from September 18 through October
1, 1963, varying numbers of men-from two to five-not covered by the
effective Signalmen's Agreement were used by Carrier for periods of time
totaling forty (40) hours and thirty (30) minutes to perform certain parts of
the signal work necessary and incident to the installation of highway crossing flashing light signals at a crossing in or near Columbia, South Carolina.
The signal work which Carrier contracted out included digging and backfilling holes for foundations, setting foundations and crossing signals, moving
Furthermore, claimants in the instant case were on duty and
under pay on the dates involved and were not adversely affected.
They do not have a contract right to the compensation here demanded by you on their behalf.
Claim, being indefinite, without basis and unsupported by the
agreement, is declined."
On March 3, 1964, the Director of Labor Relations and the General
Chairman met in conference and discussed, among others, the instant claim.
On the same date, the Director of Labor Relations addressed letter to the
General Chairman, reading:
"This refers to our discussion in conference today of claim on
behalf of Mr. P. G. Lotshaw, signal maintainer, Columbia, South
Carolina, and Mr. J. L. Holsenback, Jr., signal maintainer, Blythewood, South Carolina, for pay for unspecified amounts on September
18, 19 and 27, and October 1, 1963, alleging violation of the agreement on the grounds that the company contracted for machines to
do certain unidentified heavy lifting, breaking of pavement, excavating and backfilling in connection with the installation of highway
crossing signals at milepost R-104.7, Beltline Blvd., in the vicinity
of Columbia, South Carolina.
Claim being without basis and unsupported by the agreement,
I declined to change the decision given you in my letter of February
7, 1964. Furthermore I again remind you of the fact that the claimants were on duty and under pay when the involved work was performed. Claus being indefinite, without basis and unsupported by
the agreement, my previous declination of the same is confirmed."
The above correspondence exchanged by the parties constitutes the handling of the claim and demand on the property.
OPINION OF BOARD:
Employes contend that the Carrier utilized a
private contractor on four specific days "on the installation of crossing
signals" at a described location and that such contractor and his forces
performed "recognized signal work in direct violation of the current Signalmen's Agreement." No description of the challenged work is supported by
evidence offered by the Employes.
The Carrier stated, in its letter of November 21, 1963, as follows:
"The truth of the matter is the contractor and his machines did
nothing but the heavy lifting, breaking of pavement, excavating and
back-filling, all of which we have never recognized as belonging exclusively to signal employes, while the claimants themselves did all of
the recognized signal work such as assembling the cantilever crossing signals, installing cable, making the necessary wiring changes,
relocating one cut-section and painting the complete installation."
The foregoing constitutes the entire factual support of the Employes'
claim. The Board finds that to be too vague and unsubstantial to support
the Employes' claim.
15675 8
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 claim fails for lack of proof.
AWARD
Claim dismissed.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of THIRD DIVISION
ATTEST: S. H. Schulty
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 23rd day of June 1967.
Keenan Printing Co., Chicago, Ill. Printed in U.S.A.
15675