Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

THIRD DIVISION

Award No. 43181 Docket No. SG-43974 18-3-NRAB-00003-170042

The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Peter R. Meyers when award was rendered.

(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (

(Union Pacific Railroad Company

STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

"Claim on behalf of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the Union Pacific Railroad:

Claim on behalf of E.D. Koci, R. Martinez, Jr., G. RoJero, and W.N. White, for 8 hours each at their respective time and one-half rates of pay for each day Carrier permitted its Electricians to perform signal work, account Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement, particularly the Scope Rule and Rule 12, when on July 8, 9, and 10, 2015, it permitted employees not covered under the BRS Scope to install and maintain portable generators used solely to support the signal system on the Subdivisions Valentine and Toyah. Carrier, in assigning Electricians to perform this work violated the parties' Agreement and caused the Claimants a loss of work opportunity. Carrier's File No. 1635580. General Chairman's File No. UPGCWScope Rule-12-65-0254. BRS File Case No. 15592-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.

This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.

The Organization filed the instant claim on the Claimants' behalf, alleging that the Carrier violated the parties' Agreement when it improperly utilized Electricians to perform BRS Scope-covered work on July 8-10, 2015, thereby denying the Claimants this work opportunity. The Carrier denied the claim.

The Organization contends that the instant claim should be sustained in its entirety because the work at issue properly accrued to the Claimants under the Scope Rule and Rule 12, because the Carrier improperly assigned this work to Electricians and off-zone Signalmen, because the Carrier thereby denied the Claimants this work opportunity, because this situation did not involve an emergency, and because there is no support for the Carrier's position.

The Carrier contends that the instant claim should be denied in its entirety because the Carrier possesses greater latitude in emergency situations, because this situation involved an undisputed emergency event, because the Organization failed to prove a system-wide past practice of performing such work to the exclusion of all others, because the Organization has failed to meet its burden of proof, and because the claim is excessive and would create a windfall for the Claimants.

The parties being unable to resolve their dispute, this matter came before the Board.

The Board has reviewed the record in this case, and we find that the Organization has failed to meet its burden of proof that the Carrier violated the parties' Agreement when it permitted employees that were not covered by the Signalmen Agreement to install and maintain portable generators used solely to support the signal system. Therefore, this claim must be denied.

The record reveals that on the night in question, July 8, 2015, there was a major storm which caused a major regional power outage. The Carrier needed manpower and equipment to be able to combat the power loss. As a result, the Carrier obtained individuals from the Signal Department, Management, Electrician Department, and others to put out generators to be able to continue to operate the signal system. Although that work is normally signalmen work, given the emergency situation, which the Carrier has clearly proven in this case, the Board cannot find that the Carrier acted in violation of the Agreement when it had non-BRS forces perform the work of installing and maintaining portable generators during the emergency event. See Third Division Award 37529.

The Organization has the burden of proof in these kinds of cases and has failed to meet that burden. Although the Organization did prove that non-signal employees were performing signalmen work, given the emergency situation, the Board finds that the Carrier was allowed to utilize other employees other than signalmen to perform that work. Therefore, this claim must 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 30th day of May 2018.