NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
TBIRD DIVISION Docket Number SG-21360
Irwin M. Lieberman, Referee
(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company
STATEMET7T OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of
Railroad Signalmen on the Louisville and Nashville
Railroad Company:
On behalf of Signalman A. W. Wallace for 8 hours overtime pay
for October 22,
1973,
account Signal Foreman G. E.-Denton driving a company
vehicle from Park City, Kentucky to Memphis, Tennessee.
OPINION OF BOARD: The dispute herein was triggered by a foreman driving a
Carrier owned van from his home to a new work location
for his gang on one of his accumulated rest days, October 22,
1973.
The
record
indicates-that the foreman customarily drove the van in the course
of his work since its purchase, at least a year earlier. The Claim herein is
that a signalman, assigned to the same gang, should have driven the van and
hence eight hours pay at time and one half is claimed.
Petitioner relies on Rule
3
primarily, in support of its position.
That Rule provides, inter alia, that:
"A foreman may make inspection or test of the job under way
but shall not take the place of another employe."
Petitioner argues that driving a vehicle is work and that when the foreman
in question drove the vehicle from one work point to another he took the
place of another employe thus violating Rule
3.
Carrier asserts that this dispute does not involve the transporting
of signal materials, nor does it involve the operation of the van by someone
outside the Agreement. Carrier cites a series of awards by this Board wherein
claims were denied when supervisors and others outside the Agreement operated
trucks for the delivery of signal materials. One of those disputes involved
the same parties and was concerned with an assistant signal foreman driving
a vehicle with signal materials. In that award, Award No. 10008, in denying
the arguments of Petitioner, we said:
"Nothing is contained that gives the exclusive right to
Signalmen to drive trucks as alleged here, and we find
nothing before us to support the contention that such
work is exclusive to Signalmen."
Carrier argues further that the transporting of a Carrier vehicle from one
Award Number 21495 Page-2
Docket Number SG-21360
location to another, on the highway, is not vested exclusively in signalmen.
It is also noted by Carrier that no claim was made by the Organization for
the foreman driving the vehicle from the old work location to his home on
October 17, 1973 or for the frequent occasions he has driven the van, in the
past. Carrier concludes that this-indicates a concession by the organization
that the signalmen do not have the exclusive right to drive the van.
We have previously held that when there is a jurisdictional question
between the employes of the same craft, represented by the same Organization,
the burden of establishing an exclusive right to the work in question is even
more heavily on Petitioner; see Awards 13083, 13198 and 20425. In this
dispute the key question is not only whether the work should have been performed by an hourly rated
reserved to the craft under the Agreement. There is no persuasive evidence
on either point in this record and therefore 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
That the Agreement was not violated.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
ATTEST:
Executive Secretary -
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 15th day of April 1977.- -
'a\
. a
