Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Award No. 33319
Docket No. SG-34641
99-3-98-3-302
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee
James E. Mason when award was rendered.
(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (CSX Transportation, Inc. (former
( Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
"Claims on behalf of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of
Railroad Signalmen on the CSX Transportation Company (C&O):
A. Claim on behalf of C. H. Coovert for payment of 40 hours at the straight
time rate, account Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement,
particularly the Scope Rule and Agreement 5-069-87, when it used a
contractor to perform wiring and installation work for signal equipment
installed as part of the signal system at Hialeah, Florida, and deprived the
Claimant of the opportunity to perform this work. Carrier's File. No.
15(97-147). General Chairman's File No. 97-85-SS. BRS File Case No.
10594-C&O.
B. Claim on behalf of R. R. Wetherholt for payment of 40 hours at the
straight time rate, account Carrier violated the current Signalmen's
Agreement, particularly the Scope Rule and Agreement S-069-87, when it
used a contractor to perform wiring and installation work for signal
equipment installed as part of the signal system at Erie, Michigan, and
deprived the Claimant of the opportunity to perform this work. Carrier's
File No. 15(97-148). General Chairman's File No. 97-86-SS. BRS File
Case No. 10595-C&O.
C. Claim on behalf of G. W. Peterson for payment of 40 hours at the straight
time rate, account Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement,
particularly the Scope Rule and Agreement S-069-87, when it used a
contractor to perform wiring and installation work for signal equipment
installed as part of the signal system at Dickason, Indiana, and deprived
Form 1 Award No. 33319
Page 2 Docket No. SG-34641
99-3-98-3-302
the Claimant of the opportunity to perform this work. Carrier's File No.
15 (97-146). General Chairman's File No. 97-87-SS. BRS File Case No.
10596-C&O.
D. Claim on behalf of G. W. Peterson for payment of eight hours at the
straight time rate, account Carrier violated the current Signalmen's
Agreement, particularly the Scope Rule and Agreement S-069-87, when it
used a contractor to perform wiring and installation work for signal
equipment installed as part of the signal system at Aberdeen, North
Carolina, and deprived the Claimant of the opportunity to perform this
work. Carrier's File No. 15(97-161). General Chairman's File No. 97-94
SS. BRS File Case No. 10597-C&O.
E. Claim on behalf of G. W. Peterson for payment of eight hours at the
straight time rate, account Carrier violated the current Signalmen's
Agreement, particularly the Scope Rule and Agreement S-069-87, when it
used a contractor to perform wiring and installation work for signal
equipment installed as part of the signal system at Aberdeen, North
Carolina, and deprived the Claimant of the opportunity to perform this
work. Carrier's File No. 15(97-162). General Chairman's File No. 97-95
SS. BRS File Case No. 10598-C&O.
F. Claim on behalf of R.R. Wetherholt for payment of 40 hours at the straight
time rate, account Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement,
particularly the Scope Rule and Agreement S-069-87, when it used a
contractor to perform wiring and installation work for signal equipment
installed as part of the signal system at Hooperston, Illinois, and deprived
the Claimant of the opportunity to perform this work. Carrier's File No.
15(97-163). General Chairman's File No. 97-96-SS. BRS File Case No.
10599-C&O.
G. Claim on behalf of G. W. Peterson for payment of 38 hours at the straight
time rate, account Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement,
particularly the Scope Rule and Agreement S-069-87, when it used a
contractor to perform wiring and installation work for signal equipment
installed as part of the signal system at Evansville, Indiana, and deprived
the Claimant of the opportunity to perform thiis work. Carrier's File No.
Form 1 Award No. 33319
Page 3 Docket No. SG-34641
99-3-98-3-302
15 (97-104). General Chairman's File No. 97-53-SS. BRS File Case No.
10600-C&O."
FINDINGS:
The Third Division
of
the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the
evidence, finds that:
The carrier or carriers and the employee or employees involved in this dispute
are respectively carrier and employee 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 were given due notice of hearing thereon.
The Claimants in this case were employed at Carrier's DePriest Signal Shop at
Savannah, Georgia. It is noted that nowhere in the multiple claims set forth in the
Statement of Claim are there any specific claim dates indicated. However, the case file
reveals that the basis of each
of
the undated claims is an allegation
of
a Scope Rule
violation because the Carrier purchased prewired signal component racks for
installation on its property by Signal Department employees at the various locations
identified in the Statement
of
Claim.
The issues and arguments advanced in these disputes are not new or novel. They
have been advanced to and considered by many different arbitration Boards. The
consistent well-reasoned line
of
authority on the issue
of
purchasing pre-wired signal
component racks has held that such purchases are managerial rights and do not violate
the negotiated Scope Rule. There is no reason in this case to depart from that
established precedent. Representative of the line of Awards on this issue are Third
Division Awards 5044, 7965, 11438, 12553, 15577, 18814, 19645, 20414, 20467, 21232,
28648, 28879, 29361, 32058, 32402, 32598, 32641, 32799, among others. It is worthy to
restate the opinion on this issue that was set forth in Award 118 of Public Law Board No.
5616 which held as follows:
"In the final analysis, what the Organization is contending is that Carrier
is in violation of the Scope Rule of the Agreement when it purchased pre-
Form I Award No. 33319
Page 4 Docket No. SG-34641
99-3-98-3-302
wired bungalows from an outside vendor and installed them on Company
property. That argument is not persuasive. While the Signalmen clearly,
by Agreement, have all
of
the rights proposed by the organization, once
equipment or supplies reach the property, the Scope Rule cannot be
extended to restrict Carrier's right to purchase equipment from outside
companies.
This issue has arisen many times on the past on this Railroad, as well as on
many others. Innumerable arbitration awards on the subject have been
rendered. The more reasoned
of
those awards concludes that Carriers do
have the right to purchase pre-wired signal devices from outside vendors.
If
the parties had agreed at any time in the past that the purchase
of
prewired signal equipment was a violation
of
the `.cope Rule, their
understanding could have easily been so stated in the Agreement. The fact
that it is not so stated leads one to the conclusion that the parties never
intended that the Scope Rule would be extended to mean pre-wired
equipment could not be purchased."
Therefore, the claims as presented in this case are denied.
AWARD
Claim denied.
ORDER
This Board, after consideration
of
the dispute identified above, hereby orders that
an award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order
of
Third Division
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 17th day
of
May 1999.