NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number SG-22931
Rodney E. Dennis, Referee
. (Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
PARTIES TO DISPUTE. (
(Southern Railway Company
STATEMENT
OF CLAIM: "Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of
Railroad Signalmen on the Southern Railway Company et al.:
On behalf of Signal Maintainer R.
L.
Tillery for twenty-eight (28)
man hours overtime he was denied because on December 26, 1977, the Carrier
contracted out to
Williams
Office Supply the painting of the CTC control
machine at Birmingham,, Alabama, which is maintained by Signal Maintainer
Tillery." (General Chairman file: SR-21. Carrier file: SG-307)
OPINION OF BOARD: On December 26, 1977, Carrier contracted out the painting
of a CTC Control Machine in Birmingham, Alabama. The
Organization claims that the contracted work was work belonging to Signal
Maintainer R.
L.
Tillery. It filed a claim on his behalf for 28 man hours
of overtime. The claim was denied and is before this Board for resolution.
The Organization argues that under the scope rule of the scheduled
Agreement, maintenance work on signal equipment belongs to the Signal Department. The equipment in q
available and qualified to do the painting work required. Painting of equipment clearly falls under
therefore, be compensated the time he would have worked if the painting had
been properly assigned.
Carrier does not deny that maintenance of signal equipment does
belong to signalmen. It, however, categorizes the painting of the equipment
in this case as decorative, not maintenance work. As such, the Organization
has no claim to the work.
The facts of this case clearly support Carrier's position that the
painting was dome for decorative an, not maintenance purposes. Carrier was
combining a number of operations in one office. The office had office and
control equipment of different colors. Carrier chose to paint all the equipment the same color. Peti
equipment a single color was for other than decorative reasons.
Award Number 23087 Page 2
Docket Number SG-22931
No evidence has been presented to demonstrate that the equipment was in need of maintenance or t
adequate for the preservation of the equipment. Petitioner has failed
to present a persuasive case in this instance. It has failed to prove
that the painting in question was for maintenance purposes.. especially
in light of the fact that the equipment was housed in an air conditioned
room.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving
the parties to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon,
and upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:
That the Carrier and the Mnployes 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 has not been violated.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD AAJUSTMIT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
ATTEST:
4141
~"
=Mutive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 15th day of December 1980.