Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Award No. 37016
Docket No. SG-36970
04-3-01-3-577
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee
Francis X. Quinn 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 Company:
Continuing claim on behalf of E. M. Lang for payment of the
difference in the rates of pay between an Electronic Technician and
a Signalman. Account Carrier violated the current Signalmen's
Agreement, particularly the Scope Rule and the Classification Rule,
when beginning in August of 2000 and continuing, Carrier failed to
allow the Claimant to install cell phone back up systems on the
Council Bluffs Subdivision from MP 00.0 to MP 40.0. Carrier's File
No. 1246997. General Chairman's File No. Nscope-119. BRS File
Case No. 11763-UP."
: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. 37016
Page 2 Docket No. SG-36970
04-3-01-3-577
Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.
The Claimant was assigned to the position of Signalman on Gang 5107,
located in Omaha, Nebraska. His claim alleges that the Carrier utilized a
Maintenance Foreman and a Lead Signalman to perform work reserved to
Electronic Technicians, namely the installation of an electronic dial-up system.
The Organization failed to demonstrate that the Carrier is obligated to assign
the installation of new cell phone back up systems to Electronic Technicians. In
fact, the record indicates specific instances where the work was done by other
classifications. We have previously held that when there is a jurisdictional question
between the employees of the same craft, represented by the same Organization, the
burden of establishing an exclusive right to the work in question is even more
heavily on the Petitioner. See Third Division Awards 13083, 13198, 20425, and
21495.
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 18th day of May 2004.