Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Award No. 36204
Docket No. SG-36288
02-3-00-3-514
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee
Nancy F. Eischen when award was rendered.
(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(CSX Transportation, Inc. (former Louisville and
( Nashville Railroad)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
"Claim on behalf of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of
Railroad Signalmen on the CSX Transportation Co. (formerly Louisville
& Nashville Railroad):
Claim on behalf of C. T. Brasher, R. D. Haynes, M. R. Anderson, M. D.
Grubbs, J. S. Higgins, J. P. Montgomery, J. V. Higgins, A. D Daffron, R.
R. Klauss, B. K. Watson, J. C. Groves, C. D. Baggett, R. M. Schocklee, B.
Cundiff, Jr., D. R. Clary, E. L. McDowell, J. E. Wade, C. A. Rogers, and
K. A. Messick, for payment of $7,495.90 each, account Carrier violated
the current Signalmen's Agreement, particularly Rules 51, 31, and 32,
when beginning on July 24,1999, and continuing through September 10,
1999, it allowed employees assigned to System Signal Gang Numbers
7X44, 7XC4, 7XD7, 7XD8, 7XD6, and 7XC2 to perform work, not covered
under Rule 51, on Seniority District No. 7, and deprived the Claimants of
the opportunity to perform this work. Carrier also violated Rule 54 of the
current Agreement when it failed to respond to the initial claim in a
timely fashion. Carrier's File No. 15 99-0239. General Chairman's File
No. 99-71-09. BRS File Case No. 11446-L&N."
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.
Form 1 Award No. 36204
Page 2 Docket No. SG-36288
02-3-00-3-514
This dispute concerns the Carrier's assignment of System Signal Construction
Gangs ("System Gangs") to work with a Maintenance of Way System Production Tie
and Surfacing Gang ("Tie Gang") from July 24 to September 10,1999.
In his letter of December 14, 1999, the General Chairman alleged that the
Carrier had violated Rules 31, 32 and 51 when System Gangs were assigned to work in
conjunction with the Tie Gang. The General Chairman contended that System Gangs
were precluded from performing the work that commenced on July 24, because it was
not a new installation or new construction.
As a remedy, the General Chairman requested the Carrier to pay the amount
which he contends was paid to the System Gangs ($142,422) and that such amount be
evenly divided between 19 employees working District Signal positions on Seniority
District 7, because the System Gang performed "routine maintenance work" which may
only be performed by District forces. The General Chairman premised his position on
"past practice" and 1968 and 1984 Letter Agreements.
The Carrier denied the claim, noting at the outset that an unidentified number
of employees from various System Gangs were assigned to work in conjunction with the
Tie Gang, which was installing new ties and surfacing track on District 7 of the former
L&N Railroad. As the Tie Gang replaced the ties and surfaced the track, the signal
system was torn out and replaced, in what was a major track and signal construction
project. The work performed by the System Gang consisted of renewing track wire
connections and power cables, moving and replacing signals and signal apparatus, and
cleaning up and hauling scrap material.
The Carrier further noted that Rule 51 gives it the right to use system
construction forces to perform work such as the work made subject of this dispute, and
that the work that was performed from July 24 to September 10,1999 could not be
considered "normal" maintenance.
Rule 51. SYSTEM GANGS-SPECIAL RULE states:
"(a) System gangs will be confined to construction work on new
instaVatiom, except for necessary maintenance changes in connection with
a construction project, and in emergency cases such as derailments,
floods, snow blockades, fires and slides."
It is not disputed that from July 24 to September 10,1999 various System Gangs
were assigned to work in conjunction with the Tie Gang which was installing new ties
and surfacing track. As the Tie Gang replaced the ties and surfaced the track, the
signal system was torn out and replaced, in what constituted a major track and signal
construction project. The work performed by the System Gangs consisted of renewing
Form 1 Award No. 36204
Page 3 Docket No. SG-36288
02-3-00-3-514
track wire connections and power cables, moving and replacing signals and signal
apparatus, and finally, cleaning up and hauling scrap material.
There is nothing on this record, or within the parameters of Rule 51, that
prohibits the Carrier from using System Gangs for the type of work that was
performed from July 24 to September 10,1999.
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 24th day of September 2002.