(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE:


STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of




On August 3rd, 1972, Mr. R. E. Bellis, Passenger Trainmaster, removed a 6 amp. fuse from his mobile a blown fuse in Mr. L. Hommedieu Unit #46 Radio in order to repair same. Mr. Bellis then proceeded to install a 7~ amp. fuse in his own radio.

This is a violation of the Signalmen's agreement, particularly the Scope rule, as radio repair is a Communication Technician's work.

As compensation for the action taken by Mr. Bellis, Comm. Tech. J. Morris claims four (4) hours pay at the straight time rate.

It should also be noted that by overfusing the radio, Mr. Bellis caused a hazardous condition to exist which could have resulted in serious damage to the equipment (railroad property). (Carrier file: SG-2-73)

OPINION OF BOARD: This dispute arose over an incident on August 3, 1972.
On that date a Passenger Trainmaster removed a 6 amp. fuse from his mobile radio and exchanged it with a defective fuse in mobile Radio Unit No. 46. Subsequently the Trainmaster placed a 7k amp. fuse on his own radio unit. Claimant is a Communications Technician classified by Rule 3 of the applicable Agreement.

The Organization argues that the Scope Rule of the Agreement re serves to employes covered by the Agreement the maintenance of communication systems and "...all other work in connection with installation and maintenance thereof that has been signal work ...." Petitioner contends that the work in question, changing fuses on radios, has been generally recognized as signal work.

Carrier's principle argument is that changing a fuse is part of the operation function of a radio operator, not radio repair work, and is therefore not covered by the Scope Rule. In view of this position taken by Carrier, Petitioner has the burden of establishing that changing radio fuses has generally been recognized as signalmen's work. The requisite burden of proof has not been met by Petitioner and hence the Claim must be denied.

_ ·I







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








                        By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: li~GV

              PA& Zw~

        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of May 1975.