Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Award No. 36861
Docket No. SG-36553
04-3-01-3-47
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee
Marty E. Zusman when award was rendered.
(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(CSX Transportation, Inc. (former Louisville &
( Nashville Railroad)
STATEMENT OF CLAIlq:
"Claim on behalff of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of
Railroad Signalmen on the CSX Transportation Co. (formerly
Louisville & Nashville Railroad):
Claim on behalf of T. B. Rogers, N. Klrksey, C. E. Wilson and M. O.
Stanfill for payment of 20 hours each at the time and one-half rate.
Account Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement,
particularly Rules 51, 31, and 32, when on December 3 and 4, 1999
Carrier allowed employees assigned to a System Signal Gang to
perform work not covered under Rule 51, on Seniority District No.
6. This action deprived the Claimants of the opportunity to perform
this work. Carrier's File No. 15 (00-0045). General Chairman's File
No. 00-137-1. BRS File Case No. 11496-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.
Form 1 Award No. 36861
Page 2 Docket No. SG-36553
04-3-01-3-47
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute
involved herein.
Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.
In its January 18, 2000 letter the Organization alleged a violation of the
Agreement when System Signal Gangs performed work that was neither in
conjunction with new construction, nor a new signal installation. In fact, the
Organization argued that on December 3 and 4, 1999, the System Signal Gang was
instructed to wire and install a junction box at an existing crossing in violation of
Rules 31, 32 and 51 of the Agreement.
The Carrier denied that the work performed violated the cited Rules.
Specifically, during progression of the claim, the Carrier argued that this was not
normal routine maintenance, but "involved a major revision to the existing track
structure and signal system." The Carrier maintained that the disputed work fell
under the auspices of System Signal Gangs, as had been performed herein.
A review of the record indicates that the dispute involves the installation of a
highway crossing
junction box. At issue is whether this is routine maintenance to be
performed by District Signal employees, or work permitted to be performed by
System Signal Gangs pursuant to Rule 51
which states
that:
"(a) System gangs will be confined to construction work on new
installations, except for necessary maintenance changes in
connection with a construction project, and in emergency cases such
as derailments, floods, snow blockades, fires, and slides."
The Board notes that in the on-property record in this dispute, the Carrier
stated that:
"The Agreement defines construction work as work that involves the
installation of new equipment and systems and the major revision of
existing systems, not the normal routine maintenance required to
have existing systems operating at maximum efficiency. Moreover,
the replacement of existing systems may also be considered
Form 1 Award No. 36861
Page 3 Docket No. SG-36553
04-3-01-3-47
construction work under certain circumstances. Obviously, the
work at issue involved a major revision to the existing track
structure and signal system."
Given the Rule, saipra, and the numerous prior Awards between these same
parties, it is incumbent upon the Organization to provide sufficient probative
evidence to prove that this was "maintenance" work. (See Third Division Awards
36362, 36206, 36205, 29356 and 29518, among numerous others.) The Organization
simply has not done so. Assertions alone do not stand the test of evidence, especially
when the Carrier specifically denied an Agreement violation. Accordingly, the
claim must be 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 28th day of January 2004.