Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Award No. 36553
Docket No. SG-36355
03-3-00-3-565
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 (former Chicago &
( Northwestern C&NW)
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. J. Zimmerman for payment of two hours at the
straight time rate, account Carrier violated the current Signalmen's
Agreement, particularly Appendix A, and Article I of the February 1,
1983, Memorandum of Agreement, when on May 11, 1999, it allowed a
District Signal Foreman to perform signal work of operating a short finder
at the turnout switch at M.P. 151.6, in Marshalltown, Iowa, and deprived
the Claimant of the opportunity to perform this work. Carrier's File No.
1200968. General Chairman's File No. 9cma9659.2. BRS File Case No.
11300-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.
Form 1 Award No. 36553
Page 2 Docket No. SG-36355
03-3-00-3-565
Parties to said dispute were given due notice
of
hearing thereon.
The record
of
this case clearly establishes that for several days prior to the claim
date there had been numerous instances in which the crossing warning system at the
location in question was activating for no apparent reason. The Signal Maintainers
assigned to this territory had repeatedly inspected and tested, but had not been able to
locate the specific source
of
the malfunction. The District Signal Foreman, whose
territory included the trouble area, eventually discovered the root cause
of
the trouble
and arranged to have the malfunction corrected by the regular assigned Signal
Maintainers. The claim as presented alleges that the actions
of
the District Signal
Foreman somehow violated the rights
of
the Signal Maintainers.
The applicable Scope Rule contains the following definition:
"District Signal Foremen will supervise the work
of
employees
of
lower
classifications in their districts, and shall perform work coming within the
scope
of
Signalmen's Agreement effective January 1,1982, when incidental
to, or as a consequence
of
their duties."
It is acknowledged by the Organization that a District Signal Foreman is a
member
of
the Signalman's craft. However, it contends that the testing work which the
Foreman performed in this case to locate the cause
of
the problem was not "incidental
to or as a consequence
of
(his) duties." With this contention the Board does not agree.
It is well established that where there is a challenge between employees
of
different classes
of
the same craft, the burden
of
proving exclusivity
of
performance rests
heavily on the Petitioner. This principle was clearly enunciated in Third Division
Award 22761 where we read:
"It is well established that Claimant must bear the burden
of
proving
exclusive jurisdiction over work to the exclusion
of
others. This Board has
also found that when there is a jurisdictional question between employes
of
the same craft in different classes, represented by the same
Organization, the burden
of
establishing exclusivity is even more heavily
upon Petitioner (Awards 13083 and 13198)."
Form I Award No. 36553
Page 3 Docket No. SG-36355
03-3-00-3-565
The facts of record show that the Signal Maintainers had repeatedly been unable
to locate the cause of the malfunction. The Foreman went to the problem site to
ascertain why the Maintainers could not find the problem. He found the problem and
arranged to have the Maintainers fix the problem. This is what a Foreman does. There
is no showing in this case record that the Foreman exceeded his authority or
responsibility. Neither is there any showing that Signal Maintainers have the exclusive
right to perform all forms of testing to the exclusion of the District Signal Foreman. All
service which was performed in this case was within the four corners of the Agreement.
The claim as presented 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 8th day of May 2003.