Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Award No. 37387
Docket No. SG-37214
05-3-02-3-146
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee
Robert Perkovich when award was rendered.
(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(BNSF Railway Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
"Claim on behalf of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of
Railroad Signalmen on the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF):
Claim on behalf of P:. A. Chiqadle, D. K. Brandon, R. D. Manning,
Jr., J. C. Kaessinger, A. M. Silk, L. E. Thant, T. C. Cook and W. E.
Jensen, for 48 hours each at their respective straight time rates plus
skill differential, account Carrier violated the current Signalmen's
Agreement, particularly Rule 1 (Scope) and Rule 2 (Classification),
when it allowed non-covered contract forces to install a Truck
Performance Detector at MP 45.2 on the Oregon Division on
November 8, 9, and 13, 2000 and deprived the Claimants of the
opportunity to perform this work. Carrier's File No. 35-01-0015.
General Chairman's File No. 01-027-BNSF-188-SP. BRS File Case
No. 11933-BNSF. "
: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.
I
Form 1 Award No. 37387
Page 2 Docket No. SG-37214
05-3-02-3-146
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute
involved herein.
Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.
On the dates in question the Carrier utilized the services of an outside
contractor to install Truck Performance Detectors while the Claimants were
employed in various signal positions on the Oregon Division. The record reflects
that Truck Performance Detectors measure the vertical and lateral forces of a
freight car truck wheel as it passes through a "S" curve and that it does so through
strain gauges that are welded to the rail. Once the forces are measured the data is
then stored in an onsite computer and transmitted by phone line to a data base in
the Mechanical Department.
The Organization contends that in doing so the Carrier violated the
Agreement because the parties' Scope Rule covers the ". . . installation of . . . other
similar detector systems . . . ." This argument must be rejected, because although
the Truck Performance Detectors are in fact "detectors," they are not, as shown by
the Carrier without rebuttal, "similar" to other detectors. For example, they do not
provide information to trains, do not stop a train if a defect is discovered, and are
not tied into the signal system. Thus, we find that the work in question was not
covered by the Scope Rule.
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 February 2005.