At the outset, we note that the instant claim is a companion to the claim set forth in Third Division Award 35707.
On the dates in question, January 28 and 29, 1998, Signal Inspector G. L. Lansdale, Signal Foreman C. D. Brossette and Signalman C. D. Francis were assigned to work at Murphy Road in Sachse, Texas.
Signal Supervisor C. R. Jones was also at the crossing on the dates in question. While there, he is alleged to have violated the Scope Rule of the parties' Agreement by adjusting gate mechanisms, installing straps on AAR terminals, setting up Micro Aid event recorder with lap top and assisting in the installation of gate arms, removal of the old cantilever signals and testing. There is no dispute these tasks fall within the coverage of the Signalmen's Scope Rule.
In support of the claim, the Organization submitted a written statement by Claimant Lansdale. In the statement, Lansdale indicates he was at the Murphy Road work site when Supervisor Jones performed the tasks described above. He states he advised Jones that he (Jones) was doing scope covered work and would be confronted with a claim if he continued doing it. According to Lansdale, Jones replied, "I have to get the job done. We just don't have the people anymore."
The Carrier's defense rests on Supervisor Jones' version of what his role was during the time in question, as he relates in the following statement:
Supervisor Jones did not deny that he performed the work identified by the Organization; i.e., adjusting gate mechanisms, installing straps on AAR terminals, setting up Micro Aid event recorder with lap top and assisting with the installation of gate arms, removal of old signals and testing. We are not persuaded these tasks were merely incidental to his supervisory role at the work site, and there is no evidence or explanation as to how or when he used his performance of those tasks to train and instruct the Claimants. No contention is made that the Claimants were unqualified or lacked experience to do the work safely and efficiently. Jones certainly had legitimate supervisory duties to perform at Murphy Road, but, on this record, we find he did more than that.
The record lacks evidence supportive of the Organization's contention that Supervisor Jones' performance of work covered by the Signalmen's Scope Rule on the dates in question warrants payment of 20 hours' overtime compensation to each of the Claimants. Some remedy is warranted, however. Accordingly, because Jones' performance of the work in question was more than just minimal and/or incidental, we find each Claimant is entitled to five hours' pay at the straight-time rate.
This Board, after consideration ofthe dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimant(s) be made. The Carrier is ordered to make the Award effective on or before 30 days following the postmark date the Award is transmitted to the parties.