NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Dock=t Number SG-20410
William M. Edgett, Referee
(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claims of the General Committee of the Brotherhood
of Railroad Signalmen on the Louisville and Nashville
Railroad Company that:
Claim No. 1.
e Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement,
as amended, particularly the Scone, when, beginning
on or about August 23, 1971, it allowed and/or
permitted employes of the Illinois Power Comoany to
install line and light fixtures (flood lights) on
poles carrying Communication and Signal lines at
Brewer Yards, Danville, Illinois, on the former
C&EI Chicago Subdivision.
(b) Carrier should now be required to compensate Signal
Maintainers A. H. Royer and R. E. Winegardner for
hours each at the straight-time rate, which is
one-half the total hours being claimed; the oth=r
175 hours being claimed for Telegraph and Telephone
(T&T) employes.
LrCarrier's File: G-201-18; G-20_17
Claim No. 2.
a Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement,
as amended, particularly the Scope, when, beginning
on or about August 23, 1971, it allowed and/or
permitted employes of the Illinois Power Company to
install line and light fixtures (flood lights) on
poles carrying Communication and Signal lines at
Brewer Yards, Danville, Illinois, on the former
C&EI Chicago Subdivision.
(b) Carrier should now be required to compensate T&T
Maintainers R. J. Tolbert and J. C. Fox for 872
hours each at the time and one-half rate.
/-Carrier's File: G-201-1f
Award Number 20538 Page 2
Docket Number SG-20410
OPINION OF HOARD: In August,
1971,
the Illinois Power Company installed
light fixtures and associated power line at Carrier's
Brewer, Yards, Danville, Illinois. The Power Company made the installa
tion on poles which were in place, and which carry communication signal
lines.
The claim alleges a violation of the scope rule and a Memorandum
dated January
8, 1941.
The Memorandum covers a specific location, Oaklawn,
and refers to the practice at that location. Even if other objections to
it were disregarded, it is not evidence of practice at locations other
than Oaklawn,and certainly not of system wide practice. The Scope Rule
before the Hoard does not cover the work in specific terms and the Organization must rely on that po
The decisions of this Hoard have held that in order to show that
certain work is reserved to them, under a Rule which does not make such a
reservation clear on its face, the employees must show that the work has
been theirs by custom, practice and tradition on a systemwide basis. They
have been unable to do so on this record and the claim must be denied.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Hoard, 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 Hoard has jurisdiction
over the dispute involved herein; and
That the Agreement was not violated.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT HOARD
By Order of Third Division
ATTEST:
Executive ecretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 13th day of December 1974.
Dissent to Award 20538, Docket SG-20410
The Majority in Award 20538 roust have had a cinder in its collective
eye when it had before it the Petitioner's competent evidence of system
practice. Had a clear look been taken at the evidence, the statement that
Petitioner has been unable to show it surely would not have been made.
Award 20538 is in error, and I dissent.
W. W. Altus, Jr
~~
Labor Member