NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number SG-21993
Irwin M. Lieberman, 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 R. H. Hogan, Signalmen J. Blevins,
R. W. Shults, M. Palmer, and Assistant Signalmen G. D. Miller, M. Brantly,
and all furloughed signal employes at the time of claim, for fifteen days'
pay at the time and one-half rate, account outside contractor used to dig
holes and set poles to relocate a signal and communications pole line
from Riely Lake to Flinton, Illinois, approximately five miles, during
the months of July and/or August 1975, while at such time Signal Gang -
#1800 #1800 was working in the vicinity.
1Carrier file: R 225-686 cc:247-5219/
OPINION OF BOARD: It appears that it was necessary to-Telocate-
certain of the Carrier's facilities and right-of
way between Riely Lake and Flinton, Illinois. The project included
relocating a pale line which contained 17 wires in Carrier's signal
service and six wires in its communication service. Carrier contracted
out the digging of the pole holes and the setting of the poles necessary
to the five mile relocation. It is noted that all other work pertaining
to communication and signal wires, power lines and appurtenances was
performed by Carrier's employes. Petitioner claims that the digging
of the holes and the setting of the poles should have been assigned to
Claimants.
In the handling on the property the Petitioner cited the
Scope Rule of the parties' schedule Agreement and their Memorandum of
Agreement effective September 1, 1968 and contended that the Carrier's
contracting the "work of digging the holes and setting the poles"
constituted a violation of these Agreements. The Carrier responded
that: "There is no rule in the agreement which assigns construction
of communication pole lines exclusively to signal employes
...."
Award Number 22031 Page 2
Docket Number SG-21993
From the entire record, and the handling on the property, it
appears that the work of digging holes and setting the poles is the only
work in dispute. The two agreements cited by Petitioner cover two
different classes of work: one covers signals and signal systems and
the other covers "communication pole lines, wires and appurtenances".
Consequently, we must find that the pole line was a signal pole line
with communication wires added in order to apply the signal agreement;
or we must find that it was a communication pole line with signal wires
added in order to apply the communication pole line agreement. It
cannot be found both ways; only one agreement can be applied. The-burden for showing the essential f
matter, rests with Petitioner. During the handling on the property,
Petitioner stated: "The pole line in question carries 17 Signal Wires
and 6 Communication Wires so it appears to be more a Signal Line than
a Communication Line
...."
Thus, it is clear that Petitioner did not
show, in the handling on the property, the requisite facts to support
its contentions.
The Claim must be dismissed for lack of supportiag facts.
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 jur
over the dispute involved herein; and
Petitioner failed to sustain its burden of p dof.
___
\n
P ,.
T~r~f 22 1~;~ ,.
A W A R D
,:.
Claim dismissed.
~l. MEN
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
ATTEST :5
' 'i'1/~./~./~A~
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day of April 1978.