NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJOSTMrr BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number SG-23090
George S. Foukis, Referee
(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
PARTIES TO DISPUTR:
(Central of Georgia Railroad Company
STATEMm OF
Cum:
"Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Rail-
road Signalman on the Central of Georgia Railway Company:
On Behalf of Leading Signalman B. F. Jones for four hours' overtime pay account being denied signal
4, 1978,
when communication
maintainer loaded, hauled and unloaded material needed by Signal Gang
#6
to
complete the installations of WP circuits on new switch at M. P.
F372.6,
tear Goodwater, Alabama. (General Chairman file: CG-19. Carrier file:
SG-330)"
OPINION OF BOARD: The pivotal question before this Board is whether the
Scope Rule of the Signalaen's current agreement was
violated when a communication maintainer hauled and unloaded material needed
by Signal Gang
#6
to complete the installations of WP circuits on a new
switch at M. P.
F372.6
near Goodwater, Alabama.
The Organisation contends that Leading Signalmen., B. F. Jones was
denied four hours overtime when the Ommmaications Maintainer performed work
that was historically performed by signal employee on this property.
Carrier disputes these assertions and contends that the
Organization has not proven that such work exclusively accrued to the Signal
men and avers that Third Division Award
13'(08
involving the same parties and
the same basic issue is cedenlly oontrollingo It argues that Award
No. 10 of Public Law Board No.
2004,
involving the same parties and the same
issue, was further on point since the organization again failed to show
that it was entitled to this work.
In our review of this case, we concur with Carrier's position.
The cited Scope Rule, which is comprehensive and quite specific, does not
include the words, "loading,-hauling and
uric"
cud the organization
has not demonstrated that Signalmen exclusively performed this work.
Award Number 23197 Page 2
Docket Number SG-23090
In Third Division Award 20528, which judicially complements
,and defines Third Division Award 13708 and Award No. 10 of PLB No. 2004,
we held in pertinent part that:
"Far the Organisation to prevail in its
contention that the work involved herein
was improperly performed by employees
not covered by the Agreements it most be
clearly established that the work has
been by tradition and custom performed
exclusively on a system vide basis by
covered employees."
We find this holding dispositive herein. The Scope Rule does not cover
this precise work and the Organization has not stet the evidentiary test
of work exclusivity, set forth in Third Division Award 20528. The
record does not show that Signalmen exclusively performed this type of
work an the property and we are constrained by this clear finding to
deny the claim.
P331DMS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board.. niter giving the
parties to this dispute due notice of hearing thereonp and upon
the whole recaad and all the evidence, finds and holds:
That thq Carrier and the Employee involved in this dispute are
respectively Carr36r and Employee 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 was not violated.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAUPMD ADJUS%WT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
ATTEST:
A" lly.
Dated at Chicago, Illinoisp this 27th day of February 1981.