NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number SG-21361
Irwin M. Lieberman, Referee
(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (
(Robert W. Blanchette, Richard C. Bond and
( John H. McArthur, Trustees of the Property of
( Penn Central Transportation Company, Debtor
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of
Railroad Signalmen on the Penn Central Transportation
Company (former New York Central Railroad Company-Lines West of Buffalo):
System Docket W-57
Southern Region - Southwest Division Case S-3-74
Carrier violated the Scope of the Current working agreement when,
Communication Department employes Linemen H. M. Faulk and C. E. Dudley were
required upon specific instruction by Supervisor C&S H. D. Perry to assist
Leading Signal Maintainer M. W. McNeese in locating and clearing ground
affecting the Signal Code Line between CP153 and Illinois St. Rt. 128 on
March 8, 1974.
Carrier now be required to compensate Leading Signal Maintainer
L. C. McKee and Signal Maintainer D. L. Price eight (8) hours pay at the
overtime rate for date of March 8, 1974 account violation of the current
working Agreement referred to in (a) above.
OPINION OF BOARD: The code line involved in this dispute is located on
a pole which also contains telephone circuits. The
code line is maintained by Signal Department forces and the telephone cir
cuits are maintained by employes represented by the International Brother
hood of Electrical Workers. On March 8, 1974, due to a problem with the
signal line, a supervisor was dispatched, accompanied by a Signal Maintainer
and two Linemen (I.B.E.W. represented). They were instructed to search for
possible line damage and or brush problems at the joint pole line. The two
Linemen were used to cut brush from under the joint pole line and the Main
tainer was used to perform all work relating to repairing the code line.
The total time consumed for all of the work, according to Carrier, was four
hours. Claimants, both from the Signal forces, worked their normal tour
of duty on the day in question.
The sole issue in this dispute is whether the removal of brush
causing signal problems, from under a joint pole line, is a type of work ^/
accruing exclusively to Signalmen under their Scope Rule. An examination
of the Scope Rule indicates that it describes quite specifically the work
to be performed by Signal employes; it does not, however, mention the work
of removing brush from under a pole line. The only language in the Scope
Award Number 21410 Page 2
Docket Number SG-21361
Rule which could possibly relate to the work in question is that provision
" ..other work generally recognized as signal work." Petitioner has not
attempted to show that this work, cutting brush, is, by practice, the
exclusive work of the Signal forces.
The principal argument of Petitioner is that since the brushwas
the cause of a signal problem, its removal is covered by the contract and
should have been performed by Signalmen. The IBEW argues that its employes
customarily cut brush under such poles and the Signalmen have not established
any right to the work: hence, the Claim should be denied. Carrier states
that the cutting of brush on the property has been done by several crafts
as well as outside contractors. Carrier argues that the cutting of brush
is not generally recognized as signal work and no evidence of exclusivity
has been presented by Petitioner.
This dispute presents a classic jurisdictional problem in which
there is some merit to both positions. However, we must examine a number
of factors in drawing the fine line requisite to its resolution. Although
it is true that the brush was the cause of a signal problem it may be
equated with many other situations in which there are signal problems --
,_- created by factors which _ar_e not_Rart,.physically_of the signal system It _-
is quite clear that the Agreement, in its Scope
Rule,
does
not makfinite-
distinctions __-____and the cutting of brush is only very remotely connected with
signal work. Furthermore the linen, in cutting the rush, were alsen-
o
gaged in, at least, preventitive maintenance work insofar as the communications lines were concerned
personnel from both crafts to the group assigned to clear the trouble and it
should not be penalized for this action. Since the Linemen performed no
functions irectly on the signal equipment and the brush cutting cannot be
said to accrue exclusively to signal forces, we can find no violation of
the Agreement. Under all the circumstances of the work on this joint pole,
and for the reasons indicated, the Claim must be denied.
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
Award Number 21410 Page 3
Docket Number SG-21361
That the Agreement was not violated.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
ATTEST:
O&Wv4w~
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 18th day of February 1977.
Dissent to Award 21410, Docket .Sr-2).361
9$e Majority in Award 21410 is in error.
By the Carrier's own Statement of Facts there was -
"code line trouble in the open line
wire between Terre Haute and St. Louis. This
code line is maintained by Signal Department
forces
"On march 8th Linemen H. M. Faulk and
C. E. Dudley were instructed to accompany
Assistant Supervisor Christy and Leading
Signal Maintainer, M.
vi.
McNeese, to search
for possible line dasage or brush problems
which was the source of the code line
trouble.
Hence, it is clear from the Carrier's own Statement of Facts that
the Linemen were used to perform Signalman's work. If any preventive
maintenance to the communication lines resulted, it was coincidental.
Award 21410 is in error and I dissent.
W. W. Altus . Jr
Labor Member
