NATIONAL PAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number MW-19735
C. Robert Roadlt:y, Referee
(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
(1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it assigned Telephone
Maintainer J. T. Wilkens and Signal Maintainer 0. B. Ross to spread weed and
brush killer at various locations between Amqui, Tennessee and Hopkinsville,
Kentucky on January 22, 25, 26, 1971 and on certain dates subsequent thereto
(System File 1-12/E-304-18).
(2) Trackman B. Barnett and N. R. Price each be allowed twentyfour hours of pay at their respect
and 26, 1971 and continue to be paid for the same number of hours expended by
Telephone Maintainer
J. T. Wilkens and Signal Maintainer 0. B, Ross in performing the work referred to in Part (1) he
26, 1971.
OPINION OF BOARD: On the dates and at 'the points specified in this claim, the
Carrier assigned a Telephone Maintainer and a Signal Maintainer to spread weed and brush killer
to control the growth of vegetation and brush. Carrier averred that this type
of work has been done in years past in the same manner as in the instant case.
The Petitioner, however, took the position that weed eradication work oalbs within
scope of the Agreement and should have been performed by Track Department employees
Here, as in many other dispute$'involving the question of whether a particular scope rule in the
under such Agreement, we are faced with a situation wherein the question of exclusivity has not been
this Division involving the same parties, the same Agreement, apd similar - if
not identical - contentions of the parties. These Awards are 19418 and 19419.
In these two Awards we stated, in part:
"A careful study of the record herein and an examination
of Awards on the question find work involved in the instant
dispute falling in a 'twilight zone' between two crafts."
Award ,;umber 19873 Page 2
Docket ','.umber MW-197 >5
"The Board has adhered to the principle, when the record
lacks conclusive evidence of work assignment, that: 'the method
of determining to which class such work belongs is by examination of the reason for the performance
"The Board finds the instant record, without encroaching
upon Petitioner's contractual right to the clearing of brush
and vegetation from the right-of-way in general, lacks probative evidence necessary to prove that th
on this property, was not performed at the behest of and for
the benefit of the: Telephone and Si·;naL Departmeats."
After a thorough review of the record before us we find that the
rationale expressed in A,·ards 19.'19 and 19'09 has equal application to this
instant case and we will, theret'ure, disni=c: the cl.aLm.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment iloard, upon the whole record
and all the evidence, finds and hol::5:
That the part_es waived oral h,-arioq·
That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this ('·ispute are
respectively Carrier and Fmployes within the 7u·.aning of ·hc Railway Labor Act
as approved June 21, 192'.:
That this Division of the Adjust^ent !:hard has ji··rindiction over the
dispute involved herein: and
That the clair be dismissed,
A IJ A i2 h
Claim dismissed.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUMENT BOARD
. By
Order
of
Third Division
ATTEST: i
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Tllineis, this 27th play of July 1973.
.`W