- Award Number 17510
Docket Number SG-18145
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Arthur W. Devine, Referee
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD SIGNALMEN
THE TEXAS AND PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
Claim of the General Committee of the
Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the Texas and Pacific Railway Company:
(a) On behalf of Signal Maintainer C. H. Sypert, headquartered at
Atlanta, Texas for two (2) hours and fifty (50) minutes at
time and one-half his straight-time rate of $3.13 per hour, account from 6:00 to 8:50 P.M., July 3, 1967, he was called for
signal trouble and required to cut trees growing up through
open signal line wires causing the trouble.
(b) On behalf of Signal Maintainer T. V. Parrish, headquartered at
Whitesboro, Texas, for five (5) hours at time and one-half his
straight-time rate $3.13 per hour, account from 7:00 P.M. July
11 to 1:00 A.M. July 12, 1967, he was called for- signal trouble
and required to cut trees growing up through open signal line
wires causing the trouble. (Carrier's File: B 315-8)
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: C. H. Sypert and T. V. Parrish Claimants in the instant dispute are monthly rated signal maintainers
with headquarters at Atlanta and Whiteboro, Texas respectively.
On July 3, 1967, at 6:00 P.M. signal maintainer Sypert was called to his
assigned territory to clear signal trouble. He was relieved at 8:50 P.M.
On July 11, 1967, at 7:00 P.M. signal maintainer Parrish was called to
his assigned territory to clear signal trouble. He was relieved at 1:00 A.M.
July 12, 1967.
It was determined by both signal maintainers that trees growing up
through the signal wires caused the signals to operate improperly.
Claimants repaired the signal trouble by cutting trees from the signal
wires.
Claimants requested the time at overtime rate, which was refused by the
Carrier.
During handling of the dispute on t1;e property, the General Chairman
stated and it was not disputed by the Carrier that, "The cutting of trees and
brush on the right-of-way of this railway has historically and traditionally
Correcting signal failure does not, of course, constitute ordinary
maintenance and construction, but during the conference you expressed dissatisfaction with the fact that the signal trouble was
caused by trees and brush on the right-of-way. You agreed, however, that the only trees and brush cleared from the right-of-way
by the claimants on the dates in question were those fouling the
lines which resulted in signal failure.
In view of the foregoing, we find no justification for changing the
decision given to you in these cases in our letters dated January 9, 1968, which are hereby affirmed.
Yours truly,
/s/ O. B. Sayers"
OPINION OF BOARD: The facts and contentions of the parties herein
are essentially the same as those in Award 17508. For the reasons stated in
that Award, the claim herein will be denied.
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 not violated.
AWARD
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
ATTEST: S. H. Schulty
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of September 1969.
Central Publishing Co., Indianapolis, Ind. 46206 Printed in U.S.A,
17510 6