NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number SG-15848
(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(The Grand Central Terminal
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Rail
road Signalmen on the New York Central Railroad Company
(Buffalo and East) that:
(a) The Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement, as amended,
particularly the Scope, when, commencing on or about May 21, 1964, it assigned or
otherwise permitted employes of the Electrical Department to install relay boxes,
car inspection signals, and 110-volt AC lines to the relay boxes and car inspection signals at Grand
(b) The Carrier be rcquired to compensate the employes of Gang "B",
with headquarters at SS "A" Grand Central Terminal, at their time and one-half
rate of pay for an amount of time equal to that spent by the Electrical Department employes in conne
OPINION OF BOARD: The record in this case discloses that the installation of
a Car Inspection Protection Device System at Grand Central
Terminal was assigned to employees covered by the Signalmen's Agreement. Shortly
after Carrier commenced the installation of key electrical control switches on
April 30, 1964, with Signal Department employees, Carrier received verbal and
written demands from Carrier's electrical workers claiming the work in question.
Subsequent to the demand of the electrical workers, Carrier met with representa
tives of both the Signalmen and the Electrical employees. No agreement could be
reached as to which organization was entitled to the work in question. Thereafter,
Carrier assigned certain portions of this work to Signalmen and other portions of
this work to Electricians. The Signalmen contend that the Scope Rule of the Agree
ment was violated when Carrier assigned portions of the involved work to Electri
cians. The Organization cites Section 2 of the Scope Rule in support of this con
tention. Carrier contends that this is a jurisdictional dispute which requires
notice to all parties concerned; that no notice was afforded the Electricians'
Organization, and that, therefore, this dispute should be remanded to the property
or dismissed without prejudice. The record discloses that this third party notice
was given and that there was no response. In the alternative, Carrier contends
that the Signalmen's Agreement was not violated in the assignment of that portion
of the work performed by Electricians; that the claim is vague and indefinite
and the Claimants are not readily identifiable; and that Claimants in this case
are not entitled to the time and one-half rate as claimed for the reason that
compensation claimed is for time not worked.
Award Number 19401 Page 2
Docket Number SG-15848
In part, the Organization relies upon Award 19058 by this Referee.
A careful comparison of this docket and the facts giving rise to Award 19058
reveal that said award is distinguishable from the instant dispute. The signal
device in question in Award 19058 actually controlled the movement of trains;
in this case, the disputed device merely constituted notice that work was being
performed on a track and did not affect a train movement. Therefore, Award 19058
is not in point and cannot be used as precedent.
The record discloses that this dispute was referred to the AFL-CIO
Jurisdictional Committee and that said Committee concurred with the division of
work made by the Carrier herein. This Board acknowledges that the AFL-CIO decision is not binding in
element, coupled with other phases of this case, that can be considered in
arriving at a conclusion.
Further, the Electrical Code of the City of New York required the 110
Volt circuit in the train inspection light installation to be performed by licensed
electricians, thereby precluding these unlicensed Signalmen from performing such
work.
Also, the power to the involved devices emanated from power lines, which
did not constitute any part of the signal circuits. The work apportioned to Electricians in this ins
This claim 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.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
ATTEST:
Saz(~ ,
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 15th day of September 1972.