NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number SG-19574
Benjamin Rubenstein, Referee
(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(The Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company (Chesapeake District)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad
Signalmen on the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company (Chesapeake District) that:
(a) The Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement, particularly Scope Rule 1, when it a
repair of Stevens hump air compressor motor to railway electricians (two); and
(b) The Carrier further violated our current Agreement, particularly
Scope Rule 1, when it assigned or permitted, on June 16, 1970, a railway road
mechanic to disassemble one of the two air compressors at Stevens hump; therefore as a result,
(c) The Carrier now be required to compensate Signal Maintainer H. H.
Clark and Signal Maintainer Helper E. V, Cotcamp at their applicable pro rate of
pay, in the comparable amount of time, for the violations cited in parts (a) and
(b) of this claim.
(Carrier's File: 1-SG-283; SB-11-N)
OPINION OF BOARD: The claim herein is almost on all fours with that involved in
Award No. 9210, between the same parties and involving the
same agreement and a similar issue. There, the complaint alleged, that work involving a component pa
two 75 horsepower 440-volt motors was given to workers not covered by the Signal.
men's agreement. The instant case, consisting of two claims, also involves the car
retarder system. Some of the work was done by machinists and some by electricians
- none of whom was covered by the signalmen's agreement.
In Award 9210 we said:
".
. the Agreement before us provides in the Scope Rule for the
maintenance repair and construction of signals,
...
car retarder
systems,
...
While the Scope Rule is general in character, we
cannot agree that such rule is ambiguous or that past practice
may lessen the effectiveness of the provision of the agreement,
where there are no exceptions or modifications contained in the
Rule involved".
We are bound by the decision in Award 9210. See also Award No. 10730.
Award Number 19850 Page 2
Docket Number SG-19574
Award No, 12411, relied on and cited by the carrier, is distinguishable
in facts from those contained in 9210, In Award No, 12411 the compressors were
originally maintained by dock longshoremen before the car retarder system was
installed. No such situation exists in the instant case.
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 Carrier violated the contract.
A W A R D
Claims sustained.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT DOARD
By Order of Third Division
ATTEST: Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 13th day of July 1973.
