THIRD DIVISION
(Supplemental)
NEW YORK CENTRAL COMPANY
(Western District)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the New York Central Railroad Company (Lines West of Buffalo) that:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: This claim is the result of Carrier's contracting out work recognized to be covered by the Scope of the Signalmen's Agreement. The work involved operation of a back hoefront end loader used to dig and backfill a trench for underground cable in connection with a signal construction project at or near Dunkirk, New York.
On twelve (12) different days during the period May 24, 1965 to June 9, 1965, an employe of a contracting company, Mr. Clark by name, was used to perform the Signal Work. As a result, claim on behalf of Signal Mechanic
A member of the signal gang working on this project was assigned to accompany the trencher and its operator at all times while working on Carrier's property.
Subsequently, a claim was filed by the Organization on behalf of Signal Mechanic 0. Birman, who was assigned to the signal gang working on this project and who was on duty and under pay at all times when the leased trencher was being operated on Carrier's property; in fact, he was the member of the signal gang assigned to accompany the trencher and its operator while working on Carrier's property.
The aforesaid claims for an additional eight hours' pay per day at pro, rata rate were filed for the following 12 days, viz.
although the leased trencher was not operated on Carrier's property on June. 2, 8 and 9.
The Organization submitted and progressed the instant claims on the allegation that the Scope Rule of the Signalmen's Agreement was violated when an employe of the contractor operated the trencher on Carrier's rightof-way.
OPINION OF BOARD: This dispute involves the use of a ditching machine referred to as a "trencher" for digging and back filling ditches on Carrier's right-of-way for laying signal cable in connection with the relocation of a Traffic Control System control point in the vicinity of Dunkirk, New York. Carrier leased equipment from an outside contractor who was willing to lease said equipment only on condition that he would furnish the operator, which fact gives rise to the instant claim.
A member of the signal gang working on this project was assigned to accompany the trencher, and its operator, at all times while working on Carrier's property.
It is the position of the Brotherhood that the controlling agreement prohibits the Carrier's contracting the subject work to outsiders.
The Carrier asserts several defenses, including the fact that a member of the signal gang accompanied the machine and its operator.
The Carrier states that the accompanying employe would have operated the machine had it been available without an operator, and it is not shown that the employe accompanying the trencher performed any other work or service while so engaged.