NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number SG-21680
Robert W. Smedley, Referee
(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Missouri Pacific Railroad Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood
of Railroad Signalmen on the Missouri Pacific
Railroad Company:
On behalf of Signal Foreman W. H. Pankey ($1233.48 per month)
and Signalman G. Brown ($5.74 per hour), members of Signal Gang #1065,
St. Louis, Missouri, for 64 hours each at time and one-half their
respective straight time hourly rates, account the Carrier, about the week
of October 30, 1974, engaged the services of an outside contractor to dig
approximately 149 holes for a signal pole line change, between North
Chester, Illinois, and the south end of Reily Lake, Illinois, in violation
of the Scope Rule dated September 1, 1968, included in the Scope Rule of
the current Agreement dated May 1, 1964.
LCarrier's file: K 225-668/
OPINION OF BOARD: The claim is that Carrier should not have contracted
out the relocation of some four miles of signal
lines, requiring the setting of approximately 149 poles. Some 130 new
poles were used while 19 were salvaged from their previous location.
The Carrier's decision to contract was based on engineering forecast
that the new location would require a power auger and perhaps blasting,
neither of which were within the capability of the signal gang. As it
turned out, the signal crew could probably have handled the job.
"SCOPE
"This Agreement governs the rates of pay, hours of
service and working conditions as specified herein of
employes in the Signal Department classified in Article I
of this Agreement performing signal work in the construction, installation, maintenance, repair, ins
testing of signals and signal systems, interlocking plants,
highway crossing protection devices and their appurtenances,
centralized traffic control systems, hot box protection
devices, slide and flood protection devices connected to
signal system, electric switch lamps (except removal and
replacement of bulbs and lenses), car retarder systems,
and all other work generally recognized as signal work
pursuant to the Standards and Practices adopted by the
Signal Department, either in Signal Shops or in the field."
Award Number 21867 Page 2
Docket Number SG-21680
The above is clarified by a September 1, 1968, agreement:
"Construction and maintenance of communications pole
lines, wires and appurtenances.
"NOTE: The word 'construction' used in the foregoing
sentence does not deprive the Carrier of the
right to have other than Carrier forces perform
the work required in the rehabilitation,
upgrading and dismantling of existing communica
tions pole lines, wires and appurtenances, nor
does it prohibit the contracting of major new
communication pole line construction, with the
understanding such action will not result in
contracting out the signal wires and power lines
and appurtenances or the furloughing of employes
subject to the Agreement between the parties hereto."
The issue, therefore, is whether this was construction reserved
to the signalmen, or was major new work which could be contracted out.
The project was required to make room for a new main track. It consisted of moving the signal lines
of the tracks.
A scope agreement, not identical but similar to the above,
appears in Award 16337 (Friedman) where "larger installations in
connection with new work" could be contracted. We quote from that award:
"But a fence which replaces an existing fence, and is
made of new materials, although on the very site of the
old one, is a new fence - even if some of the old fence
posts are retained. Similarly, a house built upon the
foundation of its burned-out predecessor is a new house,
even if some of the plumbing is retained and its function,
design and appearance are duplicated. Practically and
logically, a new house has been built. At some point it
may be difficult to distinguish where repair or minor
modification leaves off and new construction begins, but
that is no problem in dealing either with a replacement
fence or house or the CTC system on this property."
This approach was approved in Award 16523 (Devine) and is equally pertinent
here.
Thus, we are constrained to find that the major new work exception
applies.
Award Number 21867 Page 3
Docket Number SG-21680
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
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 31st day of January 1978.