STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company (Gulf District) that:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: This dispute is a result of the Carrier's action of transferring the work of constructing concrete signal foundations from signal employes at Settegast Yard, Houston, Texas, to Bridge and Building employes at Little Rock, Arkansas, and is based on our contention that such transfer of signal work is violative of the current Sig. nalmen's Agreement, particularly the Scope because the B. & B. employes who are performing the work hold no seniority or other rights under the Signalmen's Agreement. This type of work has been performed by signal employes since the inception of the current Signalmen's Agreement, and has been considered as being signal work covered by the Scope of that Agreement. In some cases, signal employes had performed such work at the location in the field; in other cases the foundations were constructed at a central point, then transported to the point where installed.
The Brotherhood has been unable to establish the exact date on which the B. & B. employes at Little Rock began to construct concrete signal foundations, but it appears to have been on or about August 1, 1961. The transfer of this work was disclosed when signal foundations were received at Settegast Yard.
This design is lighter in weight yet has more surface for horizontal earth loading and greater resistance to either rotation or overturning.
7. The Carrier began to use the new standard type of foundations in 1957 on the Northern, Central and Southern Districts. The Carrier purchased the new type foundations from Permacrete Products Corp. at first. The Carrier operates a Pile Yard at North Little Rock where concrete piles, bents and other products are poured or use in replacing wooden trestles. The men employed at the yard are in the Carrier's Bridge and Building Department and are experienced in making concrete products. Since the men are experienced working with concrete and a supply of ready-mixed concrete is available, the Carrier started making the new type foundations for the Signal Department in the yard rather than purchase the precast concrete parts from an outside firm. By having all of the work done at one location, only one set of forms is required and greater efficiency can be achieved.
8. On August 17, 1961, the first shipment of the new type foundations left Little Rock for use on the Carrier's Gulf District. Thereafter the Carrier ceased having the barrel type foundations made on the Gulf District and began using the improved type foundations exclusively. Signalmen on the Gulf District, including the claimants, have never made the improved type of precast concrete "sectional" foundations and are not equipped for and are not skilled in this work.
OPINION OF BOARD: The record herein clearly shows that the manufacturing of precast concrete foundations for signals was not reserved exclusively for the Employes herein. Thus the record reveals that precast foundations of the so-called barrel type were made at both Carrier's Reclamation Plant in Palestine, Texas by another class of employes and by the Employes herein. Later in 1957 the new standard type of foundations were purchased from outside sources and still later were made at the Carrier's Yard at North Little Rock by another class of employes.
Carrier concedes that the pouring of concrete foundations for signals at the job site has been performed by the Employes herein and they will continue so to perform when the work is done in the field.
It is well settled that the burden of estabishing exclusivity of assignment rests with Petitioner. In view of the record the Petitioner has not carried its burden. As the foregoing principle has been so well established by awards of this Board we will refrain from citing awards which so hold.
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