Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Award No. 44916 Docket No. SG-47105
23-3-NRAB-00003-210449
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Kathryn A. VanDagens when award was rendered.
(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (
(Union Pacific Railroad 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 M.W. McClintic and T.O. Meyer, for 112 hours at their respective straight time rate of pay; account Carrier violated the current Signalmen’s Agreement, particularly the Scope Rule and Rule 65, when on October 17, 2019, through December 9, 2019, Carrier assigned two Communication Technicians to replace Raven modems with Digi modems, and install antennas on hot journal detector houses, at M.P. 881.5, 893.5, 902, 919.5, 929.5, 941.5, 954, 964, and 976.8, on the Gila Subdivision, M.P.
998, 1013, and 1025, on the Lordsburg Subdivision, and M.P. 9.3, and 57.9, on the Nogales Subdivision, resulting in a loss of work opportunity for the Claimants. Carrier’s File No. 1731994. General Chairman’s File No. W- SR-65-0081. BRS File Case No. 16346-UP. NMB Code No. 177.”
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.
Form 1 Award No. 44916
Page 2 Docket No. SG-47105
23-3-NRAB-00003-210449
At the time this dispute arose, the Claimants were assigned to the Carrier’s Signal Department. On October 17, 2019, through December 9, 2019, the Carrier assigned two Communication Technicians to replace the Raven Modems with Digi Modems, and to install Antennas on Hot Box Detector Houses at 14 locations.
In a letter dated December 16, 2019, the Organization filed a claim on behalf of the Claimants. The Carrier denied the claim in a letter dated February 7, 2020. Following discussion of this dispute in conference, the positions of the parties remained unchanged, and this dispute is now properly before the Board for adjudication.
The Organization contends that the Carrier violated the parties’ Agreement, in particular the Scope Rule and Rule 65 when it assigned two Communication Technicians to perform the scope-covered work of replacing Raven Modems with Digi Modems and installing Antennas on Hot Box Detector Houses. The Organization contends that the work is reserved to its members in accordance with the Scope Rule and past practice.
The Organization contends that the language of the Scope Rule of the parties’ Agreement is clear regarding this work, to wit:
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:
***
All wayside detector systems and devices including but not limited to, hot box detectors, dragging equipment detectors, high/wide detectors, high water detectors, slide fences, and car counting devices connected to or through systems and devices listed in this scope rule.
***
(b) If subsequent to the date of this agreement, a radio, radar, microwave, fiber optic or laser system is installed and its primary purpose and intent is the control of signal systems, employees subject to this agreement will install and maintain such systems, excluding automatic train control and automatic cab signal equipment on motive power or rolling stock.
***
Form 1 Award No. 44916
Page 3 Docket No. SG-47105
23-3-NRAB-00003-210449
All other work generally recognized as signal work, performed in the field or signal shops. The classifications enumerated in Rule 1 include all the employees of the Signal Department performing work referred to under the heading of “Scope.”
This agreement will include the appurtenances and apparatus of the systems and devices referred to herein.
The Organization contends that the Scope rule explains that the Signal employees will be responsible for installing and maintaining the equipment. The Organization further contends that the Carrier has taken the affirmative position that once the equipment is installed, it is the responsibility of employees within the Signal Department.
The Organization contends that it has presented substantial evidence that the work assigned to the Communications employees has historically been performed by the Signalmen. The Organization contends that the on-property record shows that the modems were in use for hot box detectors and upgraded to 4G, and in no way changed the function or purpose of the modems.
The Organization contends that the equipment installed is an appurtenance for the hot box detectors. The Organization contends that the Board has held that this equipment is an integral part of the hot box detectors, and the installation of such equipment is reserved to the Signalmen.
The Organization contends that the Carrier has failed to provide any documentation to confirm that the disputed work can be performed by Communications. The Organization contends that the Carrier arbitrarily removed the installation work and assigned it to the IBEW communications workers but argued that the Signalmen still maintain the equipment.
The Organization contends that the Board has made clear that when work is within the Scope Rule and supported by past practice, it is reserved to the employees covered by the Agreement. The Organization contends that the record shows the work associated with detectors has historically been performed by the Signal Department and the Carrier corroborated the fact that Signalmen have performed the work and maintained the equipment.
The Carrier contends that the Organization has failed to show a violation of the Agreement. This case involves jurisdiction of work between the Signalmen and the
Form 1 Award No. 44916
Page 4 Docket No. SG-47105
23-3-NRAB-00003-210449
Communications workers. The Carrier contends that the Organization is claiming exclusivity of the installation of modems and antenna to various hot box detectors, while evidence shows that the work has historically been performed by both BRS and IBEW employees.
The Carrier contends that Union Pacific is comprised of several former railroads, each of which had their own collective bargaining agreement with BRS and IBEW. On February 1, 2000, a new consolidated collective bargaining agreement covering the entire system became effective and was revised on December 1, 2010.
On each of these former railroads BRS and IBEW held rights to certain work that was not consistent on a system-wide basis. The Carrier and BRS recognized this fact with the following language in Section 8:
Under the former SP and UP Collective Bargaining Agreements there were divisions in work between employees represented by the BRS and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. The consolidation of these two agreements is not intended to affect those areas of work and representation rights.
The Carrier contends that IBEW employees performed many tasks on these former railroads including but not limited to the installation and maintenance of modems that are not included within the BRS scope rule. Thus, the Carrier contends that the installation and maintenance of modems is not exclusively reserved to the Organization’s members.
The Carrier contends that it has provided evidence that the work has been performed by both Signal and Communications employees. The Carrier contends that the IBEW employees have installed the modems and the work is not exclusive to the Signalmen. Thus, the Carrier contends, the Organization cannot meet its burden of proving a violation.
A review of the record demonstrates that “modems” are not mentioned in the Signalman’s Scope Rule. There is no dispute that modems have been considered telecom equipment. The Organization has not presented any evidence that the modems are yet connected to the signal systems. Thus, the Organization has not met its burden of proving that the installation and replacement of the Raven modems was exclusively reserved to Signal employees. The Carrier has acknowledged that Signal employees will be responsible for connecting the modems to the hot box detectors.
Form 1 Award No. 44916
Page 5 Docket No. SG-47105
23-3-NRAB-00003-210449
The Organization has not shown that the Carrier violated the Agreement by assigning the work to communications employees.
Claim denied.
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 April 2023.