Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Award No. 35039
Docket No. SG-35411
00-3-99-3-298
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee
Robert Richter when award was rendered.
(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(CSX Transportation, Inc. (former Seaboard Coast Line
( Railroad Company)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
"Claim on behalf of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of
Railroad Signalmen on the CSX Transportation Company (former
Seaboard Coast Line):
Claim on behalf of R.L. Lynch for payment of 40 hours at the straight
time rate and five (5) hours pay at the time and one-half rate, account
Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement, particularly the
Scope Rule (A) and (B) when it allowed outside Contractors to install
signs on all Signal Crossings on the Claimant's assigned territory during
the month of December, 1997. Carrier's File No. 15(98-208). General
Chairman's File No. SCL/12/98. BRS File Case No. 10856-SCL."
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 AdjustmentBoard has jurisdiction over the dispute involved
herein.
Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.
Form 1 Award No. 35039
Page 2 Docket No. SG-35411
00-3-99-3-298
This is one of numerous claims filed by the Organization claiming the Carrier
violated the parties' Scope Rule when it engaged a contractor to install signs on signal
equipment.
The record reveals that in 1997 the Carrier began a program of positioning signs
at grade crossings giving the phone number of the Carrier's dispatchers. The signs
alerted the public to call if a hazardous situation occurred at the crossing, such as a
stalled truck on the tracks. The outside contractor fabricated and installed the signs.
The signs were attached to grade crossing equipment at crossings where such
equipment was located. Where no grade crossing equipment existed the sign was
installed as a stand alone sign. This claim only pertains to the signs attached to grade
crossing equipment such as gates or flashing signals.
One thing that is clear is that the signs do not activate any signal equipment, nor
are there any wires connected to the signs.
The Organization bares the burden of proving its contention that the Agreement
was violated. The Carrier argued that the work is not covered by the Scope Rule. It
cited several Awards to support its case. Among them is Third Division Award 23481
wherein the Board held:
"... the Carrier argues that passive traffic signs can hardly be considered
integral to the Carrier's highway grade crossing protection system so
such signs are not appurtenant to the signal system. Lastly, the Carrier
asserts that since the Scope Rule does not refer to passive traffic signs, the
Organization must demonstrate (and it has failed to do so) that the
disputed work has historically and traditionally been performed by
signal employes on a systemwide basis.
The signs in dispute are designed to warn and inform oncoming motorists
concerning the number of tracks at a railroad crossing or to indicate to
the motorist that he is at a grade crossing. The issue is whether these
particular signs are appurtenances to highway railroad grade crossing
protection systems within the meaning of subparts (A) and (C) of Rule 1.
Form 1 Award No. 35039
Page 3 Docket No. SG-35411
00-3-99-3-298
To demonstrate that the signs are appurtenances specifically covered by
Rule 1, the Organization must prove that the signs are an integral part
of or essential to the Carrier's highway grade crossing protection system.
Third Division Awards No. 11973 (Kane); No. 13857 (Mesigh); No. 19251
(Devine) and No. 22705 (Kasher). We rule that the Organization has not
met its burden of proof in this case. The signs which are mostly
informational in nature are not substantially related to the highway
protection system or to the approach or presence of a train. Thus, the
disputed work was not exclusively reserved to the signal employes on this
property."
In this claim the Organization failed to prove that the signs in question affect the
signal system in any way. It also failed to prove that BRS-represented employees have
the exclusive right to install these particular signs.
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 25th day of October, 2000.