NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number SG-16204
(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Southern Pacific Company (Pacific Lines)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad
Signalmen on the Southern Pacific Company (Pacific Lines) that:
(a) The Southern Pacific Company violated the current Signalmen's Agreement (effective April 1,
it failed and/or declined to apply the Scope Rule, which resulted in violation of
Rule 70 of the agreement, by not assigning signal work to employes covered by the
Signalmen's Agreement on November 6, 9, 10, 17, 18, 20 and 23, 1964.
(b) Messrs. Lambert, Walker, Meakins, Nichols, Hanson and Dehle be allowed eight (8) hours each
for each date shown above, or a total of fifty-six (56) hours each, for the time
worked by employes not covered by the Signalmen's Agreement installing car retarders at the Eugene C
(Carrier's File: SIG 152-174)
OPINION OF BOARD: The dispute herein involves the assembly and installation by
trackmen at the end of the classification tracks (referred to
as the "bowl" tracks) in the Carrier's retarder yard (referred to as the "bowl")
in Eugene, Oregon, of a device which stops and hold cars moving by gravity from
the hump. The device is purely mechanical. It does not depend upon any electrical or pneumatic syste
an independent unit. The device is set at a predetermined pressure and the desired
effect is achieved when the weight of the car depresses the running rail and solely
through mechanical linkage the cars are stopped and held when the stopper rails
compress the car's wheels. The device performs the same function as "skates".
Petitioner contends that the device is part of the car retarder system
and relies on its Scope Rule, which reads in relevant part as follows:
"(a) This agreement shall apply to work or service performed
by the employees specified herein in the Signal Department,
and governs the rates of pay, hours of service and working
conditions of all employees covered by Article 1, engaged in
the construction, reconstruction, installation, maintenance,
testing, inspecting and repair of wayside signals, pole
line signal circuits and their appurtenances, interlocking,
Award Number 19256 Page 2
Docket Number S^-162^!E
"spring switch locking devices, highway crossing protection devices and their appurtenances, way
and train control equipment, detector devices connected
with signal systems, including centralized traffic control
systems, car retarder systems and hot box detectors and
"
Carrier refers to the device in the record as both a car stop and as a "mechanical retarder". It
it is an independent unit having no connection whatever with the signal system,
asserting that the Rule applies only to car retarder systems that are connected
to the signal system.
Similar cases have been before this Board involving other properties.
The results are mixed. Award 12300 in which Petitioner's claim was sustained
involved an electrically operated device and is clearly distinguishable from the
herein claim. Award 12925 which followed, denied Petitioner's claim on the basis
that "these devices are stoppers, not retarders." Award 12968, in awarding the
work to Signalmen, found znat a similar device (the only apparent difference
being that the device thorein had spring loaded rails) was a retarder and not a
stopper and was covered by a Scope Rule similar to the one involved herein.
Thereafter, Award 13910, involving a similar device (also spring loaded), found
that under a similar Scope Rule that the device being "isolated and unconnected"
was not part of the car retarder system. Award 14777 adopted Award 13910 and
also denied Petitioner's claim.
We have considered the record, the case citations, and the arguments
and contentions of the parties as well as the submission of the Intervenor,
Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes, and are of the opinion that Award
13910 is the sounder award. Accordingly, we will incorporate it herein by reference and will deny th
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 Carcier and the Employes involved in this dispute are
respectively Cerriei ai.d Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act,
as aDEroved J.i_e 21, 1')34·
ThaL this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the
dispute iavuivad herein; and
Award Number 19256 Page 3
Docket Number SG-16204
That the Agreement was not violated.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
ATTEST:
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 9th day of June 1972.