NATIONAL
RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT
BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number SG-26344
(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Consolidated Rail Corporation
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim on behalf of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railr
Claim on behalf of S. M. Reardon for two hours and forty minutes at
the punitive time account of carrier allowed or permitted Track Foreman R.
Jette to maintain cross-over switches at Warren, MA and thereby caused a violation of the Scope Rule
OPINION OF BOARD: As third party in interest, the Brotherhood of Maintenance
of Way Employes were advised of the pendency of this case
and filed a Submission.
The Organization asserts both procedural and substantive Carrier
violations which stem from the undisputed fact that on August 17, 1983, a
Track Foreman lubricated switches on the main line. A Claim was filed to the
Supervisor-C&S that such work belonged to the Signal Department. Claim was
denied by the Division Engineer in what the Organization argues was a
procedural violation of Rule 4-K-1, in that the SupervisorC&S did not respond.
Advancing the Claim on merits, the Organization argues that the
"graphiting of switches and crossovers on the main line has . . . been the
responsibility of the Signal Department personnel." It advances its argument
with two Carrier memorandum pertaining to the graphiting of switches by Signal
Forces.
The Carrier argues that no procedural or substantive violation
occurred. With regard to the procedural argument, it maintains that for over
five years claims had been directed to the Division Engineer and that the
practice has been well known, verbally advised and followed in the submission
of Claims on the property. With respect to the merits, the Carrier denies a
Scope Rule violation in that such work as graphiting hand thrown switches has
historically been performed by the Track Department.
This Board's review finds much in the ex parte Submissions which cannot clearly be found
to the two Carrier memorandum, they are referred to in the letter of September
28, 1983, from the Claimant to the Assistant General Chairman which is
provided in the record by the Carrier. As such, this Board can infer that
they were discussed on the property, unlike the Claim letters provided by the
Carrier.
Award Number 26414 Page 2
Docket Nubmer SG-26344
As to the procedural issue, Rule 4-K-1 refers to the "Supervisor-CAS
(or other designated official)." Carrier maintains no violation in that the
Division Engineer was known as the designated official to respond. The Organization never refutes th
procedural violation occurred.
As to the merits, the Organization carries the burden of supporting
its Claim of a Scope Rule violation. There is nothing in the Rule specifically assigning such work a
memorandum confirms that such work has been Signal work by past practice or
history to the exclusion of other crafts. Carrier's rebuttal that such work
as graphiting hand thrown switches has been performed by other crafts was not
supported on the property, nor rebutted by the Organization. Yet the Organization carries the respon
probative evidence beyond mere assertion (Third Division Award 25250). The
Organization has failed to do that in the instant case. As such, its Claim is
denied.
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 Agreement was not violated.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
AttesZ~Ql~'
Nancy J. Dever - Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 13th day of July 1987.