Form I NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Award No. 37879
Docket No. SG-37788
06-3-03-3-148
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee
Marty E. Zusman when award was rendered.
(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
(CSX Transportation, Inc. (former Baltimore and
( Ohio Railroad Company)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
"Claim on behalf of W. M. Sheckles, Jr., M. T. Gaver, V. K.
Kennedy, B. L. Watkins, M. A. Tarleton, T. E. Painter, J. L. Eagle,
Jr. and R. W. Graves, for 350 hours at the straight time rate of pay
to be divided equally among the Claimants, account Carrier violated
the current Signalmen's Agreement, particularly CSXT Labor
Agreement 15-18-94, and Side Letter No. 2, when it assigned System
Signal Construction Gangs, 7X18 and 7XF3, to perform the
maintenance work of replacing existing signal cables at Mile Post
75.5, W. B. Tower, from December 17 through December 21, 2001,
and January 28 and 29, 2002, and deprived the Claimants of the
opportunity to perform this work. Carrier's File No. 15(02-0081).
General Chairman's File No. BME-01-05-02. BRS File Case No.
12534-B&O."
FINDINGS:
The Third Division
off
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. 37879
Page 2 Docket No. SG-37788
06-3-03-3-148
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute
involved herein.
Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.
As background, the Carrier assigned System Signal Construction Gangs to
replace existing signal cables at the WB Tower at MP 75 on the Metropolitan
Subdivision. The Organization filed claim by letter dated February 16, 2002,
asserting that the work performed by System Signal Construction Gangs 7X18 and
7XF3 violated CSXT Labor Agreement No. 15-18-94, when it was not assigned to
the signal employees who were point-headquartered at that location.
This issue has already been considered. The Board finds that this is the same
location, parties, Claimants, Agreement, issues and facts that were before us fn
Third Division Award 37877. The only differences are the dates involved.
Otherwise, the Board can find no essential elements that would need consideration.
The question before us remains the same. Does the Carrier have the right to
perform major repair or is this maintenance? In this claim the Carrier stated in
pertinent part:
"The System Construction forces were brought in to rectify this
emergency situation. Due to the environmental issues of diesel fuel
on the ground, the enormity of the project, this project was assigned
to the System Construction."
There is nothing in this record that disputes the "enormity" of the project.
More to the point, there is no probative evidence to support the Organization's
claim that this is "routine" signal maintenance work. The Board finds that this was
emergency work, construction work, and not routine maintenance work.
Because this is an issue previously settled by Third Division Award 37877, we
will dismiss the claim at bar under the doctrine of res iudicata, as suggested by the
Carrier in its letter of December 19, 2002. This claim has previously been resolved
and, therefore, is dismissed.
Form I Award No. 37879
Page 3 Docket No. SG-37788
06-3-03-3-148
AWARD
Claim dismissed.
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 Ist day of August 2006.