Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Award No. 45052 Docket No. SG-45472
24-3-NRAB-00003-230315
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Edwin H. Benn when award was rendered.
(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (
(CSX Transportation, Inc.
“Claim on behalf of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the CSX Transportation (formerly C&O, Chesapeake District):
Claim on behalf of T. R. Okes, for 8 hours at his straight-time rate of pay, account Carrier violated the current Signalmen’s Agreement, particularly CSXT Agreement No. 15-018-16, Section 5, when on September 25, 2017, it permitted M. A. Neely to perform routine periodic testing on the New River Subdivision at Milepost CA378.03 and CA379.02, while assigned to Special Maintenance Gang 7J16 instead of assigning the Claimant to perform the work, thereby causing him a loss of work opportunity. Carrier's File No. 2017-229695. General Chairman's File No. 17-105-CD. BRS File Case No. 16038-C&O(CD). NMB Code No. 172.”
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.
At the relevant time, the Claimant held an Independent Signal Maintainer’s position headquartered at Quinnimont, West Virginia. The dispute in this case is over the Organization’s position that on September 25, 2017, the Carrier improperly assigned a Lead Signal Maintainer from a Special Maintenance Gang to assist a Signal Maintainer with routine Federal Railroad Administration (“FRA”) testing on the New River Subdivision at Mileposts CA378.03 and CA379.02.
According to the Organization, Special Maintenance Gangs are contractually prohibited from performing routine periodic FRA testing and the result deprived the Claimant of the opportunity to perform that work. In support of its position, the Organization points to Labor Agreement No. 15-018-16, which provides at Section 5 [emphasis added]:
“It is hereby agreed to establish Special Maintenance Gangs (Gangs) on each of the five Agreements (CSXTN, B&O, C&O-Chesapeake District, L&N, SCL). The gangs provide support for Maintenance of Way projects and operational testing in connection with the project, and when such work is not available perform heavy maintenance or other BRS Scope covered work as directed, excluding routine periodic testing ”
According to the Organization, the work improperly performed by the employee assigned to the Special Maintenance Gang was a 10-year Insulation test which is a routine periodic test. There is no dispute that the work performed at the locations in dispute was routine periodic testing. Both parties refer to the work as such.
According to the Carrier, the employee from the Special Maintenance Gang did not perform the testing work, but was assigned to only assist with the testing. In doing so, according to the Carrier, the “[t]he inspector was using a megger meter in the house and hooking them to the different wires in the house while the specialty maintenance employee opened the cable connections in the field ... [i]t was probably an hour to an hour and a half at each location.” The Carrier thus argues that the Signal employee was doing the actual routine periodic testing with the megger meter, and the Special Maintenance Gang employee was not, but was only assisting.
The Carrier’s argument that the employee from the Special Maintenance Gang was only assisting and not performing the routine periodic testing misses the point of Section 5. Two individuals were assigned to perform the periodic testing task and one of the them – the employee from the Special Maintenance Gang – was prohibited by clear language in Section 5 from doing so (“[t]he Special Maintenance ... gangs provide support for Maintenance of Way projects and operational testing in connection with the project, and when such work is not available perform heavy maintenance or other BRS Scope covered work as directed, excluding routine periodic testing” [emphasis added]). A violation of Section 5 has been demonstrated by the Organization.
It does not matter that the Claimant was fully employed on the date of the violation of Section 5. The result of the demonstrated violation was a lost work opportunity.
Claim sustained.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimant(s) be made. The Carrier is ordered to make the Award effective on or before 30 days following the postmark date the Award is transmitted to the parties.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 31st day of October 2023.