STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Transportation-Communication Division, BRAC, on the Chicago & Western Indiana Railroad, T-C 5797, that:
The dispute in this claim is predicated upon provisions of an Agreement between the Chicago and Western Indiana Railroad Company and the Transportation-Communication Division, BRAG dated December 1, 1969 as amended and supplemented and by this reference is made available to your Board.
The dispute arose because Carrier required or permitted employes not covered by the Agreement to perform work belonging to Towermen and covered under the Telegraphers Agreement.
Carrier contends the work performd at Oakdale by the signal forces was signal work performed under the direction of the Operator at 81st Street Tower.
Employes contend there was no construction, repair or maintenance work performed on the Manual Machine at Oakdale, therefore, the operation of this machine by the Signalman, was in violation of the Telegraphers' Agreement.
CARRIER'S STA'lE1·IENT OF FACTS: On July 20. 1969 the interlocking machinery at Oakdale failed to operate and was not again in service until 8:00 P. bl. on July 21. 1969.
The organization claims that during the time maintainers were working on this interiocker to restore service, "available extra, system relief, or regular .,mployc" should have been used to operate the switch machine at Oakdale Interlocker. During, the period frenn 7:00 A. M., July 20, 1969 to 8:00 1'.11:., July 21, 1969, Signal Department maintainers were working to restore service to the remote system at Oakdal. interlocker. Throughout this entire period, the operator at 81st Street Tower would phone the building containing the Oakdale switch machines and instruct the maintainer as to what manual switch should b^_ thrown. At all times, prior to, during this period, and subsequent to the breakdown, the tower operator at 81st Stree ryas in complete control of Oakdale Inb°axlocker.
OPINION OF BOARD: This claim arises as a result of temporary failure to Carrier's remote control machinery at Oakdale on July 20 and 21, 1969. Signal maintainers were used by Carrier to restore the machinery to sarvice and during the time of repairs, Carrier permitted signal employes to manually operate the interlocking machine. The Organization claims that Carrier violated Rule 7-141 of the Agreement on account of said manual operation of said interlocking machinery is the duty of and belongs to claimants, Towermrn.
The Organization's position is that a signalman does not take directions or orders from a Towerman unless he is performing Towerman's work; that the operation of interlocking mechanism manually by signalmen was a case of employes crossing craft lines and performing work under another agreement, the Telegraphers' Agreement; that the manual machine was not in need of repairs and maintenance and thus there was no need for signalmen to perform any work on it; that in the Scope Rule of the Agreement the title of Towerman is found and the description of Towerman found in the United States Railroad Labor Board's book is ample proof plus the language found in Rule 20 of the Schedule Agreement that the work in dispute belongs to the Telegraphers; that even if the Organization had permitted or overlooked a violation of its Agreement in the past, this- in no way would entitle Carrier to violate the Agreement and then rely on past practice for support; that the operation of the manual switch machine by signalmen for approximately thirty-seven (37) hours was work covered under the Telegraphers' Agreement.
Carrier's Manager of Personn·-l, George Moriarty, by letter dated April 9, 1970 to General Chairman, Alvin C. Hale, advised Mr. Hale that: "You
were further advised that Board cases on allegi·d scope violations were denied in instances where the petitioners were unablQ to prove past practice over the entire system. Inasmuch as you have failed to prove past practice where members of your organization were assigned to remote control points during plant failures, you may treat this letter as a formal rea;iirmation of my denial."
The Scope IEuh facing this Board hi !hi, -di.=j)uLo is a general scope rule wherein the positions are listr_d but not the work. In a long line of awards, too numerous to mention, this Board has vonsistently adhered to the principle that in order to show a violation, the Or_gniaztinn must prove systemwide by history, custom and tradition that the work in dispute has been exclusively reserved to Telegraphers. We find that the Oijd=nization failed to meet said burden and thus we must deny th·.· claim.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Ad·justnient Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:
That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are Tespectively Carrier and Employes within the menning 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