Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 29360
THIRD DIVISION Docket No. SG-29846
92-2-91-3-205
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Joseph A. Sickles when award was rendered.
(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(CSX Transportation, Inc. (former Baltimore S Ohio
Railroad Company)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim on behalf of the General Committee of the
Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the CSXT, Inc.
(Former B&OO Railroad):
Claim on behalf of F. E. Clawson, for payment of compensation of 360
hours pay at his punitive rate of pay, account of Carrier violated the current
Signalmen's Agreement, as amended, particularly, the Scope Rule, when it
purchased wear plates for switch machines on August 15, 1989." Carrier file
15 (90-35). BRS Case No. 8354-CSXT.BSO
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.
Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.
The Organization alleges a violation of the Agreement when the
Carrier "...allowed or permitted a contractor to perform the construction of
51 sets of wear plates in connection with the Carrier's signal system."
In its initial denial [March 29, 1990] on the property, the Carrier
advised that:
"The wear plates were purchased for a large TCS
project on the former B60 property, but at this time,
the project has been deferred. The purchasing of
sets of wear plates is no different than purchasing
any other part of a switch machine that is used in
the refurbishing process of the machine.
Form 1 Award No. 29360
Page 2 Docket No. SG-29846
92-3-91-3-205
The purchase of parts to be used in the repair and
refurbishing of signal equipment has been and still
is purchased from outside vendors is not a violation
of the current scope Rule.
Also, my investigation reveals that none of the 51
sets of wear plates purchased have been used in the
refurbishing of switch machines in the shop and that
you have been and are currently manufacturing wear
plates for GRS Model 5 type machines."
In its July 5, 1990 denial the Carrier reiterated that:
"There is no rule which restricts the Carrier's right
to purchase signal parts and apparatus, and the purchase of wear plates is not a viola
...."
While the record indicates that the Carrier purchased the wear
plates, there is nothing of record to suggest that the Carrier used them.
Regardless of the various arguments of the parties concerning the appropriate
contract interpretation by the Organization, the extent of the scope clause,
etc., we find that this dispute is premature and moot. We do not determine if
there would, or would not, be a violation if the Carrier used the purchased
material; the fact remains that it did not use the wear plates. One can
speculate as to the ultimate purpose of the purchase, but the mere fact of the
purchase does not give rise to an actionable claim under the Agreement.
A W A R D
Claim dismissed.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
Attest:
ancJy . -Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 25th day of August 1992.