Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Award No.38021
Docket No. MW-36972
06-3-01-3-610
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee
Edwin H. Benn when award was rendered.
(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
"Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
(1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it assigned
Mechanical Department employes to plow snow off right of
way at Gibson Relay Yard and Michigan Avenue Yard on
December 24,, 1999, January 17, 19 and 26, 2000, instead of
assigning Vehicle Operator S. A. Gengnagel to perform the
scope covered work (Carrier's File MW-00-001).
(2) As a consequence of the aforesaid violation, Vehicle Operator
S. A. Gengnagel shall now be compensated `. . . for 8 hours
straight time for each of the dates of December 24, 1999,
January 17, 2000, January 19, 2000 and January 26, 2000."'
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.
Form I Award No. 38021
Page 2 Docket No. MW-36972
06-3-01-3-610
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 Third Party in Interest, the International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers was advised of the pendency of this dispute and chose to file a Submission
with the Board.
This dispute concerns the Carrier's assignment of non-scope covered
employees to perform snow removal work - specifically, according to the
Organization's June 26, 2001 letter, ". . . a Round House employee plowing snow
around Gibson and Relay Yards in December of 1999 and January 2000."
The Carrier defends on the ground that the snow removal work performed
has also traditionally been performed by other employee groups.
The Scope Rule provides that "The following work is reserved to BMWE
members: . . . snow removal (track structures and right of way) . . . ."
Putting aside disputes concerning when the work was actually performed, the
Organization failed to carry its burden for two reasons.
First, in its June 26, 2001 letter, the Organization states the following:
"It is our position the carrier violated the Scope of our Agreement
when a Round House employee was utilized to operate a truck with
an attached plow to remove snow in the above mentioned [Gibson
and Relay] yards ....
. . . The term `right of way' in our eyes has been all excess [sic] roads
to and from the railroad property. I disagree with your position
Form 1 Award No. 38021
Page 3 Docket No. MW-36972
06-3-01-3-610
that the Round House employees have historically performed this
work. The fact remains that BMW employees have, and do perform
the work of snow removal in all the areas round Gibson and Relay
Yards. This work is not limited to just the right of ways, i.e., roads
and parking areas are included . . . ."
The Organization thus argues that its scope covered work for snow removal is
". . . not limited to just the right of ways, i.e., roads and parking areas are included."
But that is not what the Scope Rule says. If there is an exclusive reservation of work
to the covered employees by the Scope Rule for snow removal, by the plain terms of
the Scope Rule, that work is limited only to ". . . snow removal (track structures and
right of way) . . . ." Thus, ". . . roads and parking areas . . ." are not included in any
exclusive reservation of snow removal work under the Organization's Scope Rule.
See Public Law Board No. 6510, Award 6 involving the same language ("The
normal reading of this entire phrase must be that the only snow removal expressly
reserved . . . to BAIVVE represented employees is snow removal from track
structures and right of way . . . .").
Second, without an exclusive reservation of work beyond that specifically
provided in the Scope Rule! ("track structures and right of way") the Organization
has the burden to demonstrate that scope covered employees have performed the
disputed work to the exclusion of all others. While the Organization appears to take
that position, the Carrier asserts the opposite. For example, in its November 1, 2001
letter, the Carrier states:
". . . [T]he
Maintenance of Equipment Employees represented by the
NCF&O had historically plowed the Gibson General Office Building
parking lot and have historically had plows on M of E maintenance
trucks in order for them to reach their destination during snow
storms . . . . The NCF&O is not the only Organization in the M of E
Department that operates vehicles that have snowplows on them. It
has been the historical practice in the AR of E Department that any
employee in that department could be assigned to plow the parking
lot, etc. This includes members of the . . . IAM . . . IBEW . . .
ARASA. . . TCIU-Carmen . . . IBB, and the . . . SMWIA. At one
point or another, the Superintendent of Equipment has directed
Form 1 Award No. 38021
Page 4 Docket No. MW-36972
06-3-01-3-610
members of the Organizations mentioned above to plow snow either
on a day to day basis or event to event basis. This has been a past
practice that has gone on well in excess of twenty-rive plus years."
The IBEW's position is consistent with the Carrier's assertions. Given that
dispute of critical facts concerning the historical performance of the work, the
Organization cannot prevail.
Based on the above, the Organization has not carried its burden requiring
that this claim be denied.
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 7th day of December 2006.