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,
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
Rule 1 is a general Scope Rule. It states that the Agreement _governs employees in the Maintenance of Way and Structures Department listed in Rule 4. Rule 9 of the Agreement sets forth the work that is performed by the Track Subdepartment, such as rail laying, tie renewals, ballasting and so forth. Rule 9 idpntifiPC 11 nncitinnc in 1-hp TrarL Cnhrlon~r4**.ont th~r am .*~,e.or.,od 1.~, *ho Agreement, including Sectionmen and Track Laborer Extra Gang employees.
Rule 9(w) provides that employees assigned on section or track maintenance gangs will perform work that has been customarily recognized as Sectionman's work. The Rule does not define what work has been customarily recognized as Sectionman's work.
Rule 9(w) states that Track Laborer Extra Gang employees will be assigned new construction or work not customarily done by section gangs, such as reballasting, rail relay, tie renewals, bank widening, grade and line changes, or emer¢encv work occasioned by inrl-mPnt vvpnthpr rlvrailmPnte nr nthnr nat,rrrst disasters.
work customarily and traditionally assigned to Sectjonmen on the Nampa Subdivision to Extra Gang 6083.
The Organization identified the work in dispute as putting in switch ties, changing stock rails, changing switch points, removing old frogs and installing new ones, changing guard rails and insulated joint plugs, putting in cross ties, gauging, surfacing and lining, changing out rails and minor repairs. It submitted a written c*o*nmnn* frnm nnn amninxinn whn nlaimnrl that CPn*innmPn have hnon Am"" thle work since he hired out.
Extra Gang 6083 consisted of a Foreman, an Assistant Foreman, a Track Machine Operator, a Special Power Too! Machine Operator, a Truck Driver and three Laborers. According to the Carrier, this Extra Gang was assigned to replace switches and rail and to renew ties, work that has customarily been performed by Extra Gangs. The Carrier insists that Sectionmen have not customarily performed this work.
As noted heretofore, Rule 1, the governing Scope Rule, does not explicitly reserve work to any job classification. Therefore, as the moving party in this dispute, it is the Organization's burden to demonstrate that the switch replacement, tie renewal and tie removal work that was performed by Extra Gang 6083 was customarily performed by Sectionmen. The Organization has not sustained that
The Organization's proof consists of a written statement from one employee who claimed that since he hired out, Sectionmen have installed switch points; changed ties and rail; stock rails, frogs, and guard rails. There is no question that Sectionmen have performed this work as part of ordinary track maintenance. However, the work in dispute did not involve ordinary track maintenance. Rather, it involved switch replacement, tie renewal, 2auajn2, surfacing, and lining, among other track work. This is the type of work encompassed by Rule 9 (w). Therefore, the Carrier had the right to assign this work to Extra Gang 6083. Based on the evidence before us, the Board is not persuaded that Sectionmen have customarily ._-l..a·mnrl +hie avnrlr Th. nloim mno+ hn rlnninal ne o rneHl* pti11V11114V ilHaJ ..vaau a.aW .fwaui1fawJC l!V uHaiaa.u uJ u y Wua
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an Award fnvnrahln to thn Claim.ntlcl ~m ho r.,o.lo