EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: This is a combination of four claims that were handled separately on the property. They are combined herein because they involve the same issue--Carrier's failure to use regularly assigned signal maintenance farces to perform work at power switches that failed to indicate in the reverse position. These power switches axe maintained by signal forces. Employer who performed the disputed work hold no seniority or other rights under the Signalmen's Agreement. The claim in each instance is on behalf of the signal maintenance employe(s) assigned to the signal maintenance territory on which the disputed work was performed, Claimants were available for the work but were not called or used.
Claim No. 1, on behalf of Signal Maintainer P. J. McComas, involves a switch failure on his signal maintenance territory on January 18, 1965, at 8:00 P. M. Pertinent correspondence exchanged on the property is attached hereto as Brotherhood's Exhibit Nos. 1- A, 1-B, 1-C and 1-D.
Claim No. 2, on behalf of Signal Maintainer C. R. Kirtley and Assistant Signal Maintainer T. J. Keelin, involves a switch failure on January 28, 1965, at 9:20 P. M. Pertinent corxespondence exchanged on this claim is Brotherhood's Exhibit Nos. 2-A, 2-B, 2-C and 2-D.
Claim No. 3, on behalf o£ Signal Maintainer H. E. McComas, involves a switch t"aaluxe on January 10, 1985, at 6:00 P. M. Pertinent correspondence exchanged on this claim is Brotherhood's Exhibit Nos. 3-A, 3-B, 3-C and 3-D.
Claim No. 4, on behalf of Signal Maintainer J. H. Sutler, involves a switch failure on January 10, 1.965, at 5:30 P. M. Pertin·ant correspondence exchanged on this claim is $rotherhovd's Exhibit No. 4-A, 4-B, 4-C and 4-D.
There is an agreement in effect between the parties to this dispute, bearing an effective date of August 16, 1946, reprinted May 16, 1958, as amended, which is by reference made a part of the record in this dispute.
CARRIER'S STATEMENT OF FACTS: Thaxe is already on file with the Third Division, National Railroad Adjustment Board, General Agree-
to determine -What the trouble was. Signal Maintainer Butler found that there gas nothing wrong with the signal or ;nterlocl6ng system. They were functioning perfectly. The whole tx·oubla was that in removing the snow and ice from this particular switch, the trackmen had not removed all of it. Enough memained to prevent the switch points from going to full reverse position and permit the switch to indicate rev-w;rse at the control machine. As soon as the additional snow and ice had been removed, the switch indicated perfectly in reverse position, and this switch was used by Train No. 3 in regular manner without :further difficulty of any kind.
Switches Nos. 131, 137, and 145 similarly did not indicate reverse at the DK Cabin control machine on this occasion, and the trackmen were told to give preference to sweeping the new fallen snow from these switches. As soon as the tx-ackmen did th·aix customary snow sweeping from these three switches, the signal system continued its perfect working and indicated at the control machine that the switch points had gone over to reverse position in full and safe manner. The trackmen did nothing at these switches beyond the customary or routine snow sweeping.
Carrier's Exhibit 13 is st<vternent of Section Laborers A. h. White and Earl lt. Johnson, and Carrier's Exhibit 14 is statement of Signal Supervisor Kirtz. When the claim had bean appealed and Operator E. lt. Adkins was ached to make statement as to hiss handling, Adkins said the matter had occured a good while prior thereto and he could not remember the details in a manner ·anabling him to male statement as to just what did occur, this accounting for no operator's statement in this case.
OPINION Oh BOARD: Disputes invalvizg removal my cleaning ox sweep ing of snow and ice from switr.h·es are not new to this Board. The parties hereto have been involved in the following cases where such removal of snow and ice from. switches gave rise to the claim: Award 10417; (Sheridan); 10422 (bolnick); 11759, li7G0, 11761 and 11762 (Dorsey). A11 but one of these claims filed by Petitioner herein were denied. Award 11761 sustained Petitioner's claim that its agreement was violated because Carrier "called and used a section foreman on account of an electric switch failure." Carrier relies on the claims that were denied, a,7YTOng others on other properties, as well as its a.gx2ement with the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employer to whose members the disputed wnxk was assigned. Petitioner relies on Award 11761 as well as its ,Scope Rule ar_u 1?ul.; 7 (7,:. ork outside of Assigned Hours). The Scope Rule 5:e:a.ds in relevar.t part as
The Scope rule was the same in the aforementioned six cases. Petitioner contends £ux~t1=ex that Aivaxds involving the same facts and agreements and the same parties ax-a controlling and cites a series of awards holding to that effect. Carrier, in 'effect, contends that .Award 11.761 i,; not applicable to the facts herein. Interv·;;nor, Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employer, agrees with Carrier and points out that a "switch failure" is not a "signal
failure" alleging that trackmen maintain "switches" while signalmen maintain "signals." The position of the Intervenor was elicited pursuant to Transportation-Communication Employes Union v, Union Pacific Railroad Company (385 U.S. 157) and its contract with the Carrier has been considered in so far as it bears an this dispute.
The parties are in essential agreement as to the facts. When the Operator learned from his control machine that certain switches would not go completely over or in the reverse position Trackmen who had been previously called out because of a heavy snow fall and were engaged in routine snow and ice removal were contacted and instructed to give attention to the switches which would not indicate in the reverse position.
Thus as to Claim No. 1, on January 18, 1965, when the Operator at KV Cabin found that No. 41 switch would not give the reverse indication he contacted the dispatcher who instructed the KV Operator to have the txackmen then at BS Cabin to come to K'V Cabin 2.1 miles away to clean tlxe switch. After the snow was removed from the switch points the switch operated properly and gave the proper indication on the interlocking machine.
As to Claim No. 2, on January 18, 1965, when the Operator at BS Cabin endeavored to use No. 97 switch he found it would not give the reverse indication on the control machine. Therefore trackman were instructed to stop ch;aning where they were and proceed to switch No. 97 which was needed for a passenger train due shortly. The trackmen swept the points clear of snow anal the Operator could then use the switch in the normal fashion and the proper indications were reflected on the control machine.
As to Claim 3, an January 10, 1965, the Operator at Handley had occasion to use switch No, 51 and learned it was not going over to the reverse position. He notified the dispatcher and trackmen were called to sweep switch No. 51.. When the snow was removed the switch apetated normally and that fact was reflected on the control machine.
As to Claim ·l, on January 10, 1965, the Operator at BK Cabin found that ;;witches 181, 137 and 145 did not indicate in the reverse position on his control machine. Trackznen were told to proceed to these switches and clean them. Thereafter the proper indication was received on the control board and the ;,witches operated properly.
Carrier concedes that if there had been work requiring Signalmen to be called out the claimants are the ones who would receive the calls.
Carzzex states that the Operator knew what was causing the switch failure because of his experience and the fact than a heavy snow fall was involved. Carrier states that there was nothing v-rang with the signal apparatus and that the indication received on the control machine was normal where switches cannot operate prope-ly because of the presence of foreign objects, including snow, which pr--vent the switches from locking in either the normal or the reverse position. Thus Carrier states that the signal system was functioning properly. Carrier contends moreover that sweeping snow from switches is not reserved exclusively for Signalmen,
Petitioner contends that when a malfunction at the switches, as described above, was indicated on the control machine it was not up to the Operator to guess or to speculate as to the cause but to assign a Signalman to determine the trouble and to correct i±.
flee record reveals that the ;rvitehr5 coed nut be operated normally until the 5nosv was removed.
We have conwidere·3 all the cases cued by the parties and find that Awards 10471, 10422, 11759, 11760 and 11762 era inapposite as there is no evidence in any of these cases of malfunctioning switches. We are unable to perceive the defference between this c'as and Award 11761 which reads as follows:
The fact that trackxnen vrare already out is immaterial. The work of removing snow and ace and for that matter ^ther foreign obje:ets (Award 13938) is reserved for Signalmen when it is dune to insure the proper operation of signals, electrically controlled -witches and intexLoclting·s. (Award 4593).
As uniformity in decisions involving the same Parties is highly desirable we feel baand by Award 11761 which is indistinguishable as to the facts and agreement.
We have considered the submission of Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employer and the pertinent pant of its agreemnt with Carrier and find that under the circumstances herein Carrier's failure to call Signalmen violated Signalmen's agreement.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:
That the Carrier and the Employer involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employer 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