Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 28227
THIRD DIVISION Docket No. SG-27323
89-3-86-3-437
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Edward L. Suntrup when award was rendered.

(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Bessemer and Lake Erie Railroad Company



On behalf of Brother R. D. Flinn for 2 hours and 40 minutes pay at his punitive rate of pay account of the Carrier violated the Signalmen's Agreement, particularly, the Scope Rule, when it allowed or permitted Electrician Tom Burrows (IBEW supply at Odell on November 18, 1984."

FINDINGS:

The Third Division of the Adjustment Board upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.

This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.



As Third Party in Interest, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers was advised of t Submission with the Division.

On December 20, 1984, a claim was filed on grounds that an employee not covered under the Agreement between the Carrier and the Organization performed signal work in violation of the Scope Rule.

The evidence of record shows that on November 17, 1984, the Claimant turned off an air compressor to permit an electrician to make electrical repairs to a transformer. A Form 1 Award No. 28227
Page 2 Docket No. SG-27323
89-3-86-3-437

The Carrier argues that other employees in the past have operated switches and pushbuttons at signal facilities and that such has been a bilateral right between crafts and/or departments. The Organization, on the other hand, argues that work related to power lines extending to components inside a compressor case is Signalman's work covered by that portion of Scope Rule 1 which states the following:





A study of the record does not provide sufficient evidence of probative value to determine if th Scope Rule in the instant case. Without ruling, therefore, on whether the work in question belongs to this craft, the Board can conclude that the work involved was of such minimal amount that it falls under de minimus doctrine and that such doctrine can be reasonably applied here. In this regard the Board cites with favor the language from Second Division Award 8360 which is applicable here:






Form 1 Award No. 28227
Page 3 Docket No. SG-27323
89-3-86-3-437
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division

Attest:


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 4th day of December 1989.