NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number SG-18547
(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Lehigh Valley Railroad Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad
Signalmen on the Lehigh Valley Railroad Company that:
(a) Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement, as amended,
particularly the Scope, when on June 27 and 28, 1968, it used other than signal
employes (six-man line gang) to install seven hundred feet (700 ft.) of cable to
replace a section of pole line at Geisingers Crossing between Allentown and Bethlehem, Pa.
(b) Carrier be required now to allow two days' pay each for:
Signal Foreman Donald Robbins
Signalmen John Schmidinger, James Lightcap, James Bennett
and George Fech
Signal Helper Harry Markow, Jr.
OPINION OF BOARD: On June 27 and 28, 1968 at Geisingers Crossing between Allen-
town and Bethlehem, Pennsylvania Carrier assigned Communication
Linemen (employes not covered by the Signalmen's Agreement) to replace a section of
pole line carrying both telephone communication wires and signal control wires.
The pole line in question has four telephone wires and eight or ten signal wires
on it.
The Organization contends that Carrier violated the Scope Rule of the
Signalmen's Agreement and the claim before us was filed on behalf of members of
the Allentown Signal Construction Gang.
The pertinent Scope Rule reads as follows:
"This agreement covers rates of pay, hours of service
and working conditions of all employes in the Signal Department (except supervisory forces above the
clerical forces and engineering forces) engaged in the work
of construction, installation, inspecting, testing, maintenance and repair of signals, interlocking
highway crossing protection devices and their appurtenances,
wayside cab signal, train stop and train control equipment,
car retarder systems, centralized traffic control systems,
shop repairing of relays, signals, switch magnets, motors,
et cetera, bonding of track for signal and interlocking
purposes, and all other work generally recognized as signal
work.
Award Number 19495 Page 2
Docket Number SG-18547
"No employes other than those classified herein will
be required or permitted to perform any of the work covered
by the Scope of this Agreement.
It is understood the following classifications shall
include all of the employes of the signal department performing the work described under the heading
We note that the above Scope Rule covers the "...construction, installation, inspecting, testing
plants
...
and their appurtenances". The Rule further provides that no employees
"other than those classified herein will be required or permitted to perform any
of the work covered by the Scope of this Agreement."
The Organization submits that the Scope Rule is controlling here in that
several of the wires in the cable were "appurtenances" to the "signals", i.e. were
the actual controls for the signals. In this contention we concur.
Moreover, it is interesting to note that when the signal cable involvf
in this dispute was later extended Carrier assigned the signal construction gang
with communication employes to make the extension.
Carrier points out that this was the first such occasion of record
where a single cable was used for both signal and communication circuits and
Carrier contends that in the past Line Department employees have installed separate cables to replac
addition, Carrier argues that Claimant's were not available to perform the disputed work because the
After a review of the pertinent Scope Rule, the Board is convinced that
the Rule is clear and unambiguous and reserves the contested work to Signalmen.
Even if Carrier's allegations with respect to past :practice are true, -in vhole.or
in part, such practice would not prevail over the clear language of the applicable
Scope Rule. Past practice is of great importance where the Agreement itself is
ambiguous but that is not the case here.
Carrier's argument that the Claimants were not available to perform the
subject work because they were working their own assigned positions is not a sufficient basis to den
Claimants could not have performed the contested work in overtime hours or on weekends. Thus, in the
compensated for their loss of additional work opportunities.
1
Award Number 19495 Page 3
Docket Number SG-18547
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 violated.
A W A R D
Claims sustained.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
ATTEST:
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 17th day of November 1972.
I