Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Award No. 36342
Docket No. SG-36351
02-3-00-3-540
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:
(Union Pacific Railroad Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
:
"Claim on behalf of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of
Railroad Signalmen on the Union Pacific Railroad (C&NW):
Claim on behalf of D. E. Beck for payment of three hours at the straight
time rate, account Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement,
particularly Article 1, of the February 1, 1983, Memorandum of
Agreement, when on June 3, 1999, it allowed a District Signal Foreman to
perform signal work of making wiring tags at Mile Post 132.9 and deprived
the Claimant of the opportunity to perform this work. Carrier's File No.
1200397. General Chairman's File No. 9Cm82O09.2. BRS File Case No.
11360-C&NW."
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. 36342
Page 2 Docket No. SG-36351
02-3-00-3-540
The Claimant was regularly assigned to a position of Signal Maintainer at Tama,
Iowa. He was on duty and under pay when on June 3, 1999, a District Signal Foreman
was overseeing the work being performed by two Signal Maintainers at M.P. 132.9. A
portion of the work being performed by the Signal Maintainers consisted of writing
identification tags which were then attached to the various wires being installed. At the
specific request of one of the Signal Maintainers at the job site, the Foreman wrote the
tags that were applied to the wiring.
From a review of this case file it is clear that the claim as presented must be
denied. The Foreman performed no service that was outside of the scope of his job
classification. The Foreman performed the disputed work at the personal and specific
request of the Maintainers who were performing the required signal work.
There has been no showing by the Organization that the miniscule performance
of writing identification tags is work that is exclusively reserved to Signal Maintainers
to the exclusion of the Foreman.
Therefore, this claim is 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 26th day of December 2002.