NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number SG-20344
(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
company that:
(a) The Southern Pacific Transportation Company (Pacific Lines)
violated the Agreement between the Company and the Employes of the Signal Department, represented by
1, 1947 (reprinted April 1, 1958 including revisions), and particularly Rules
16, 32, and 33.
(b) Mr. D. R. Wise and Mr. G. G. Shaw be allowed four (4) hours .
each at their overtime rates for January 15, 1972, 9:00 A.M. to 1:00 P.M.
(Carrier's File: SIG 152-300/
OPINION OF BOARD: On Saturday January 15, 1972 Carrier used two signal gang
employees for four hours each at the overtime rate to pick
up and deliver an electric switch lock from the Sacramento Signal Shop to the
west switch at Gridley, some 60 miles distant, where it was needed for emer
gency repair work. The work involved herein consisted of loading the signal
material into a truck, hauling it to Gridley, unloading the material and re
turning to Sacramento. Claimants, who are signal maintainers, assert that
they were entitled to this work by Rule 16 and implicitly
by
Rules 32 and.33.
Thus, the instant claim for four hours overtime was filed by each on March
11, 1972.
The petitioning Organization, on behalf of Claimants, argues that
Rule 16 expressly reserved the involved work to Claimants. Specifically, the
Organization asserts that maintenance men on a seniority district have a
right to be called under Rule 16 for any emergency work on the entire seniority
district, irrespective of whether the work is in their maintenance district
or their adjoining maintenance district. In support of this view the Organization cites Third Divisi
Carrier has denied the claims primarily upon the ground that the
work in question involved merely loading, hauling and unloading and not maintenance work as such,cit
argues that such work is not reserved exclusively to maintenance employees
either by express language or by custom, practice and tradition on this property.
Moreover, Carrier tsges that Awards 17248 and 18138 countenance application of
Rule 16 only in the same or adjoining maintenance districts and do not require
xpansion of the rule on the entire seniority district.
Award Number 20799 Page 2
Docket Number SG-20344
We have considered carefully the arguments advanced, the Agreement
language and especially the many Awards cited by each party. Upon such consideration we find numerou
herein, viz whether the loading, hauling and unloading of an electric
switch lock from the shop to an emergency repair site is maintenance work
for purposes of Rule 16. If such is maintenance work then Awards 17248 and
18138 suggest that a sustaining award may be in order. On the other hand,
if this is not work reserved to maintenance employees then Awards 13347,
13060 and 18649 call for a denial. It should be noted that numerous Awards
have interpreted Rule 16 between these parties but none is foursquare with
_ie fact situation now before us, i.e., where it was necessary for an employee
Obtain and deliver signal material during off-duty hours for immediate
mergency, use.
In the claim letter of May 9, 1972 the General Chairman states:
"On January 15, 1972, junior employes regularly assigned to
a gang were called in preference to employes assigned to regular maintenance duties to load and tran
assigned area to the Marysville area, for emergency purposes.
The gang men were not used for any other work except the loading,
hauling, and unloading material."
W.= find that the instant case most closely parallels those involved in Awards
'-'7, 18060 and 18649. The former two Awards involved Scope Nile claims but
_-: its essence the instant case likewise reduces to an analysis not unlike
..at utilized in scope cases. There simply is not evidence in the instant
_.:ord of Agreement support nor custom and practice that loading, hauling
mad unloading signal equipment is reserved to maintenance employees. On this
-ound alone we find it necessary to dismiss the instant claims. It should
b= noted that in so holding we do not find it necessary to pass on the con:.~cting contentions regar
w. do not herein undermine the validity of Awards 17248 and 18138 in cases
w:_-re maintenance duties actually are performed. We hold merely that in
t':a instant fact.; and circumstances we are not persuaded that the loading,
h.:uling and unloading constituted such maintenance duties.
=:NDINGS: 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
r,:specrively Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor
Art, as approved June 21, 1934;
Award Number 20799 Page 3
Docket Number SG-20344
That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction
over the dispute involved herein; and
That the Agreement was not violated.
A W A R D
Claim dismissed.
NATIONAL RAILROAD AnMSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
ATTEST:
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 29th day of August 1975.
LABOR ME ?'S DISSENT i0
AWARD 20715 (Docket CL-20418)
This Award dismissing the Employees' claim for lack of
proof is palpably in error. '2o arrive at this conclusion,
the Referee had to take the several foundations of the claim,
separate each from all others, and reason that individually
each iias insufficient to make a case--thus collectively also
they could not rake a case.
One is reminded of the brick house analogy: Careful
examinat-icn of each brick reveals that each alone remains a
brick; however, toE,ether they n:ake a house.
In the instant case, the separate parts of the Employees'
proof standing alone may not have made a complete case, but
together they surely did.
Award 20715 is in error and requires dissent.
.Flet her
Mer=
Men
bor
May 23, 1975
..-..J