NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number SG-22246
Joseph A. Sickles, Referee
(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Missouri Pacific Railroad Company
( (Formerly The Texas and Pacific Railway Company)
STATEMENT OF CIAIM: "Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood
of Railroad Signalmen on the former Texas & Pacific
Railway Company:
On behalf of Leading Signalman J. A. Boyd, Centennial Yard,
Fort Worth, Texas, for an additional payment of 8 hours at time and
one-half his straight time hourly rate ($1475.44 per month), account
being required to suspend work of his assignment to perform work of
another craft on June 10, 1976, in violation of the Scope Rule and
Rule 62 of the Signalmen's Agreement." (Carrier file: R 315-l24/
OPINION OF BOARD: The Claimant asserts that on June 10, 1976 he
was required to suspend work in order to perform
the work of cleaning stairway handrails in the building where signal
equipment (under his responsibility) was located. The Claimant asserts
that the work in question belonged to another craft, and thus the
Carrier violated the Scope Rule:
"This agreement governs the rates of pay, hours of
service and working conditions of all employes in the
Signal Department, except supervisory forces above the
rank of Electronic Technician, clerical forces and
engineering forces, performing the work generally
recognized as signal work, which work shall include
the construction, installation, maintenance and repair
of signals, interlocking plants, car retarders,
highway crossing protection devices and their
appurtenances, centralized traffic control systems,
and all other work generally recognized as signal
work."
Award Number 22244 Page 2
Docket Number SG-22246
as well as Rule 62:
"Except in extreme emergencies, employes covered by
this agreement will not be expected to perform work
of any other craft nor will employes of any other
craft be required to perform work coming within the
scope of this agreement. This does not apply to
maintenance of electrical equipment on water pumps
or to testing outside telephone during regular
working hours."
The Carrier points out that "cleanup" work does not
"exclusively belong to any one particular craft" and stresses that
work of this nature is incidental to signalman's duties.
When a 'claim such as this is presented, the Petitioner
assumes a burden of proving a violation of the Scope Rule. and/or
Rule 62 with a showing of probative evidence to demonstrate that
the work in question belongs to another craft. Under this record
we are only able to discover assertions of a violation - but no
proof to substantiate th6se allegations. In the absence of a
prima facie showing of a violation we are compelled to dismiss the
claim.
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 Claim should be dismissed.
Award Number 22244 Page 3
Docket Number 98-22246
A W A R D
Claim dismissed.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
ATTEST:
h.
MWMMW
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of November
1978.