C:\AWARDS\IN\3-37610.htm

r

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJU.STMIENT BOARD
T DIVISION

r . 7610
Docket No. 767
0 -3- -3-19

The Third Division consisted of the regular embers and in addition Referee Robert . Richter hens ward was rendered.

PARTIES T DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

(Brotherhood of Railroad Sinalmen

(Union Pacific Railroad Company

"Claim on behalf of t General Committee t Brotherhood f ailroa Signalmen t Union Pacific (UP).

Claim on behalf of M. . David, . . Miller, C. Johnson, C. D. Patterson and D. Dissiger, for tours each, t their respective time and one-half rates of pay, account Carrier violate the current Signal en's Agreement, particularly the Scope Rule and Rule 80,

hen it allowed employees* not covered y the Agreement to install retaining all specifically for a signal l housing on August 28, 29 and
30, 2001, an deprive the Claimants f the opportunity to perform
this r. Carrier's File o.1. General Chairman's File
scope-2. BRS File Case o.12 -U."

FINDINGS:

The Third Division the Adjustment Board, upon the whole rcr all the.
evidence, finds that:
The carrier r carriers an the employee or employees involved i is dispute
e respectively carrier and employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Ac4
roved June 21,1934.

This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute

involved rein.

Parties to si dispute a notice f hearing thereon.

r . 1

2 Docket No. SG-37672

_3_0 . ®1

n the - clai dates the Claimants ere assigned Signalmen o

Construction an.

n August 2 , 2an3, 2001 the Carrier used employees of another craft t install a retaining wall or berm to suort signal house and equipment.

n October , 001 the Organization submitte this claim asserting c Rule. violation, in particular Item , which reas:

Carpentry, painting, concrete and for work of all classes in

connection with installing, repairin r maintaining signal,

relay housing, crossing flashers and gates, interlocking or

retarder systems, apparatus r vie. (Excluding the eeci

and maintenance buildings, rest foundations

upurchased It argues that the work done was solely for the purpose of protectin signal
equipment. The Carrier did of refute the Organization's stateent s to the
nature the or.

T Organization also sits tat it as s done this type of work in the past,
is the Carrier did not deny.

To o buttress its argument the Organization submitted Award 12 of Public Law
Board . 5565 is involve similar or. In that case t oar rule as
follows:

"It is readily evident fro the photograp that the existence f the

it (sic) all is only in conjunction with the signal and but for the

placement the signal at tis location, there would ve bee n

need for a retaining all t tat particular spot. Given the nature,

use a function f this particular retaining all, iy fairly

e described an 'appurtenance' f the signal system. s such, the

r of its construction as reserve for signal forces y t lain

language of the NIRC/BRS Agreement Scope Rule, supra, and

arrier violated that t Agreement when it used other than signal

forces t perform the work of constructin this particular retaining

1."

Award No. 37610

Docket No. SG-37672
®®

Carrier r t t e r o i reserved t st

1 ee. n support its position the Carrier cite Third ivisi n r
which involved the parties to this dispute. In that case the Board ruled:
" yr n 24,1 1993, Maintenance of Way employees in,

t Carrier's taut t constructed retaining wall on the Harvard Subdivision at Mile Post 43.43. The

Organization tat t construction as put in lace to hold

t noun fill which supported signal foundation associated

appurtenances n therefore covered

the

The Carrier s r

completed by the Maintenance of Way employees was to keep the

ballast fr slid i ft a tt sit

r nizai's ree a .

blowers and signal case and was properly assigned to the
Maintenance y yes. . Signal Department employees
previously installed the signal foundation directly supporting the
associated appurtenances (signal relay cases).

signals ls or signal

Citing Its Scope l'. . . construction ® . .
systems with all appurtenances on or along the ra way
follows: [iInstalling foundations directly supporting signals or
ass date appurtenances'), the Organization claims . The
Organization's Scope Rule, however, does not clearly support the
Organization's claim to assignment of this kind of construction.
While it is certainly y arguable this kind of construction falls under
t Organization's c , there ispecific i this
particular construction in that Rule. To that extent, we do not find
the Organization's Scope Rule has specifically reserved the disputed
construction or to Signal employees.

In Public Law Board No. 2960, Award 175, a similar dispute arose
between the Carrier and Maintenance of Way where the Signal
employees were the beneficiary of the assignment of construction of
'a wooden retaining wall to support the ground fill upon which the
supplatform porting i a t . . . was t
constructed. ® . .' ' That Board denied the claim to the work by
Maintenance of Way. Citing the Scope Rules of Maintenance of
Way and t Organization, further ti t to
Form 1 Page 4

r

of Way Scope Rule was 'less speciflc' than the Rule, tat oar observed:

'This isere the language i the contracts f two

difert crafts sees to o grant rights to the same work to

orou .'

rith that observation. Because the disputed work is not

s eciclrrvnitio 's cut Signal

1 ees n because the e Organization has not demonstrated the

istence f exclusive it, custom practice l
employees have performed the work, we must deny the claim."
l t i t cite y Carrier t
support the track ballast as well as the signal equipment.
agree it r that t or constructing s is of
exclusively reserved to y craft. However, as i this
for
the exclusive se f protecting signal equipment, such work belongs to BRS
e to employees.

e partially sustained. o ever, s c
remedy, Claimant C. Johnson was on vacation at the time and, therefore, he is not
title t a remuneration. l other sere fully 1 t claim
ates a compensated, including overtime. Because t it properly relie
a previous Award in determining the work assignment, the Board will award all
Claimants, other than Johnson, eight hours' t tstrait

t No. SG-37672
05-3-03-3-19

Organization's
Scope

such, this case

AWARD

aim sustained i accordance t t Findings.
Form 1 Page 5

E

1
Docket No. SG-37672
®_3®-

i is Board, after consideration of the dispute identifled above, hereby orders
that an award favorable to the Claimant(s) be made. The Carrier is ordered to make
the effective or fore s following t t t r i
transmitted to the Parties,.

Order fii irdDivision

Dated at Chicago,

i is, this

Y September