Award No. 15917
Docket No. SG-14750
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
(Supplemental)
Edward A. Lynch, Referee
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD SIGNALMEN
LOUISVILLE AND NASHVILLE RAILROAD COMPANY
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
Claim of the General Committee of the
Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the Louisville and Nashville Railroad
Company that:
(a) The Carrier violated the Signalmen's Agreement (Rule 1-
Scope) when work was performed by personnel not covered by the
Signalmen's Agreement.
(b) H. L. Morris, the Lead Signal Maintainer covering the terri-
tory on which these infractions of the Signalmen's Agreement occurred,
be compensated at Signal Tester's rates-one day's pay for July
3, 1962 and one day's pay for July 6, 1962.
[Carrier's File: G-304-14; G-304]
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: On July 3 and 6, 1962, Assistant
Signal Supervisors J. D. Atchison and M. M. Booker tested relays and signal
apparatus on the M.& N. O. Division between Bay Minette and Perdido, Alabama, where signal work preparatory to taking out a passing track was in
progress.
The work which the supervisors performed on those days is included in
Rule 1. SCOPE of the Signalmen's Agreement, and employes who perform this
work are classified in Rule 2. SIGNAL TESTER.
As a result of the violation, Local Chairman W. M. Noonan initiated a
claim on behalf of Leading Signal Maintainer H. L. Morris for a day's pay at
the Signal Tester's rate for each of the two days on which the violation
occurred. Leading Signal Maintainer Morris is capable and qualified to perform this type of work; in fact, he was the person who, shortly before the date
of the first violation, had shown the supervisors how to use the test equipment
and make the tests on the signal relays and apparatus. A short time before this
violation occurred (about 3 weeks) Assistant Signal Supervisor Booker had
taken Leading Signal Maintainer Morris to Gulfport, Mississippi, for the purpose of having him make the necessary tests to relays and apparatus at a new
highway crossing signal installation. Gulfport is approximately 72 miles from
Mobile, Alabama, where Claimant's headquarters are located.
"LOUISVILLE AND NASHVILLE RAILROAD COMPANY
Office of Director of Personnel
Mr. T. J. Bass, General Chairman
Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
Dear Sir:
Please be referred to your letter of January 25, 1963, appealing
claim in favor of Lead Signal Maintainer H. L. Morris, Mobile, for
one day's pay, July 3 and July 6, at tester's rate, based on the contention that Assistant Signal Supervisors J. D. Atcheson and M. M.
Booker violated the scope and Rule 2 of the signal employes' agreement, when they tested signal relays and signal apparatus.
This claim was discussed during conference in this office May 31,
at which time your attention was called to the fact that Claimant
Morris was assigned as leading signal maintainer at Mobile to maintain a C. T. C. machine at that point and signal facilities from end of a
double track at Commerce Street to Canal Street, Mobile. Mobile is
Mile Post 667, whereas the relays involved in this claim were located
between Mile Posts 631 and 643, between Perdido and Bay Minette, not
on the territory of Claimant's assignment.
Your attention was also called to the fact that Signal Maintainer
Chapman and Helper Amos accompanied the assistant supervisors
and witnessed the tests. Neither Maintainer Chapman, Helper Amos,
nor Lead Maintainer Morris, according to our information, were qualified to make the tests involved. Your attention was also called to the
fact that Claimant Morris worked his regular assignment on the dates
in question.
As stated to you during conference, we see no basis whatever for
any claim in behalf of Lead Maintainer Morris and same is respectfully declined.
The agreement involved became effective February 16, 1949, and has been
revised to October 1, 1950. Copies of the agreement are on file with the Third
Division.
OPINION OF BOARD:
We are initially confronted with a procedural
deficiency alleged in behalf of the Organization that Carrier's letter of denial of
the claim, reading:
"I do not agree with your decision that the Carrier violated the
Signalmen's Agreement by having work performed by personnel not
covered by said Agreement,"
15917 6
meets the requirement that Carrier, in denying a claim, "must give the reasons
therefor."
The statement that Carrier "does not agree" it had violated the Agreement
is not sufficiently responsive to the requirement that it must apprise the
Organization of the reasons for denial.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole
record and all the evidence, finds and holds:
That the parties waived oral hearing;
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 Agreement was violated.
Claim sustained in accordance with the Opinion.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT
BOARD
By Order of THIRD DIVISION
ATTEST: S. H. Schulty
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 31st day of October 1967.
Keenan Printing Co., Chicago, 111. Printed in U.S.A.
15917 7