NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number SG-19460
(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Southern Pacific Transportation Company (Pacific Lines)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Rail
road Signalmen on the Southern Pacific Transportation Com
pany that:
(a) The Southern Pacific Transportation Company violated the Agreement between the Company and t
April 1, 1947 (reprinted April 1, 1958, including revisions) particularly the
Scope Rule and Rule 13, which resulted in violation of Rule 70, account recognized signal work perfo
other rule in the current Signalmen's Agreement.
(b) Mr. J.G. D'Amico be allowed four (4) hours compensation at his
time and one-half rate for June 5, 1970, in addition to compensation allowed
for that date. (Carrier's File: SIG 152-273)
OPINION OF BOARD: On June 5, 1970, starting at approximately 5:45 A.M. Sig
nal Supervisor H. M. Silva started driving a boom truck
(LA-654) from Burbank to Oxnard. The truck had been loaded by employes covered
by the Signalmen's Agreement; and, it was unloaded at Oxnard by covered employes.
It is the contention of Signalmen that "inasmuch as the primary purpose
in moving the boom truck with signal material from Burbank was for use on the
signal construction project in progress at Oxnard, the operation of the boom
truck with signal material from the time it was moved from Burbank was work that
accrues to Signal employes covered by Signalmen's Agreement."
Paragraph (a) of the Scope Rule, in its enumeration of work reserved
to Signalmen, does not include driving a truck loaded with signal material and
equipment. The concluding clause of that paragraph is general in nature and
reads: "and, all other work generally recognized as signal work performed in
the field or signal shops." The issue presented is whether the driving of the
truck here involved is work contemplated and encompassed in that clause. Signalmen have the burden o
preponderance of substantial evidence of probative value to support a finding
that by practice, history, custom and tradition the work involved has been
system-wide exclusively performed by Signalmen.
The Local Chairman and the General Chairman, in the handling of the dispute on the property, mad
Consequently, Signalmen failed to satisfy its burden of proving a prima facie
case of Agreement violation. Therefore, we are compelled to dismiss the Claim
for failure of proof.
Award Number 19822 Page 2
Docket Number SG-19460
FIIIDIIZS: 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 Employcs 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 Claim must be dismissed for failure of proof.
A W A R D
Claim dismissed.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTIMIrT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
ATTEST:
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 20th day of June
19'/9.
tE9ty.
.::~