Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Award No. 38100
Docket No. SG-37901
07-3-03-3-307
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee
Elizabeth C. Wesman when award was rendered.
(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
I;Union Pacific Railroad Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
"Claim on behalf of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of
Railroad Signalmen on the Union Pacific (UP):
Claim on behalf of S. C. Anderson, J. W. Hayes, J. K. Chandler, B.
Goodrum and J. C. Hernandez, for 3 hours and 15 minutes each at
their respective rates of pay, account Carrier violated the current
Signalmen's Agreement, particularly the Scope Rule, when it
allowed a contractor to install a power drop at Palmetto Street in
Plain Dealing, LA, at MP 422.2 on May 1, 2002, and deprived the
Claimants of the opportunity to perform this work. Carrier's File
No. 1321790. General Chairman's File No. S-SR-282. BRS File
Case No. 12638-UP."
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. 38100
Page 2 Docket No. SG-37901
07-3-03-3-307
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute
involved herein.
Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.
This dispute centers on provisions of the Scope Rule which reads, in pertinent
part, as follows:
"This agreement governs the rate of pay, hours of service and
working conditions of employees in the Signal Department who
construct, install, test, inspect, maintain or repair the following:
1 . . . . (e) highway crossing warning systems and devices ....
2. High tension or other lines of the Signal Department, overhead
or underground, poles and fixtures, conduits, transformers,
arrestors and distributing blocks, track bonding, wires or
cables, pertaining to railroad signaling, interlocking, and other
systems and devices listed in (1) above."
The incident precipitating the claim at issue arose on May 1, 2002, when the
Carrier employed Hughes Electric Company to perform work in proximity to a
highway crossing warning system location at Palmetto Street in Plain Dealing,
Louisiana, at Mile Post 422.2.
The Organization filed the instant claim on May 7, 2002. It alleged that the
Carrier had allowed the contractor's forces to "dig a hole, set a pole, and wire in a
power drop," and accordingly had violated the Scope Rule. The Carrier denied the
claim by letter of July 1, 2002. In its denial, the Carrier contended that, in essence,
the contractor had installed a meter service, not a power drop. The denial was
appealed on August 12, 2002, and was subsequently progressed according to the
provisions of the Agreement.
The Board reviewed the sparse evidence presented in this case. That review
reveals no basis upon which to judge whether the work at issue was covered by the
Organization's Scope Rule. Accordingly, the Board has no choice but to dismiss this
Form 1 Award No. 38100
Page 3 Docket No. SG-37901
07-3-03-3-307
case for failure of proof. In doing so, the Board makes no comment whatsoever
regarding the nature of the work at issue. Thus, this decision is limited to the
particular case at hand and is not intended as precedent for any similar cases that
may arise involving the work alleged here.
AWARD
Claim dismissed.
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 21st day of February 2007.