:tATIC'T4I, RAILROAD ADJLJST:M7T BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket lumber SG-228
Martin F. Scheinman, Referee
(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Illinois Central Gulf Railroad
STAT=E- OF CLALM: "Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood
of Railroad Signalmen on the Illinois Gulf
Railroad:
For compensation for 800 hours for all assistants who were in
a nonvoluntary furlough status beginning with the date, April 19, 1978,
the carrier received delivery of a retarder section (at the E. St. Louis
Hump) that had been assembled by persons who hold no seniority or other
rights under the Signalmen's Agreement, account the performance of such
work by other than signal forces is a violation of past practice and
the Signalmen's Agreement, especially the Scope, Rule 1)a).
(Carrier file: 135-241-198 Spl. Case No.
335
Sig.)"
OPLIION OF SOAP:
The Organization contends that Carrier violated the
Agreement when it assigned employes, other than
signal employes, the work of assembling car retarders for its East
St. Louis 'card car retarder system. The preassembled retarders were
installed by signal employes.
The Organization's claim rests primarily on the Scope Rule. It
asserts that construction of car retarders falls within the work rule. The
Organization also arses that signal employes had performed the disputed
work since car retarders were installed on Carrier's property in the 1920's.
On April 19th, 1978, Carrier received a preassembled car retarder
section from the Lucey Boiler Company of Chattanooga, Tennessee.
The evidence on the property as well as the submissions to this
Board clearly establishes that Carrier purchased the end product of the
Lucey Boiler Company. The disputed work was completed prior to the tire
that Carrier acquired possession of the equipment. That is, there is
nothing to indicate that this did not constitute a purchase.
This is not the situation where the unassembled equipment was
on the property and then sent out for assembling. If that was the case,
the rights of the employes under the Scope Rule would attach. Here these
rights hale not yet attached. In short, the purchasing of a finished
product, in the circ·,:mstanc·s presented here, cannot be viewed as the contracting ou
the
farming out of bargaining unit work.
Award Number 23020 Page 2
This Hoard has consistently held that Carrier may purchase
assembled equipment without violating the Scope Rule. See for example
Awards
5044, 21824.
Those cases are applicable here. Therefore, we
will deny the claim.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Hoard, upon the whole
record and all the evidence, finds and holds:
That the parties waived oral hearing:
That the Carrier and the Employee involved in this dispute
are respectively Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway
Labor Act, as approved dune 21,
1934;
That this Division of the Adjustment Hoard has jurisdiction
over the dispute involved herein; and
That the Agreement was not violated.
A Vi A R D
Claim denied.
UTICKAL RAILROAD ADJISTDM HOARD
W
Order of Third Division
ATTEST:
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 17th day of October 1980.