NATIONAL RAILWAY LABOR CONFERENCE
1239 CONNECTICUT AVENUE, N.W., WASHINGTON, D. C. 200!6/AREA CODE: 202-699·9120
CHARLES 1. HOPKINS, Jr. Chairman ROBERT BROWN, Vice Chairman
 W. L. BURNER, Jr., Director of Research J. F. GRIFFIN, Director of Labor Relations
 D. P. LEE, General Counsel T. F. STRUNCK, Administrator of Disputes Committees


Mr. Irwin M. Lieberman
 91 Westover Avenue
 Stamford, Connecticut 06902

 Mr. Robert M. O'Brien
 27 School Street
 Boston, Massachusetts 02108

 Mr. Nicholas H. Zumas
 Suite 505
 1140 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.,
 Washington, D. C. 20036

 Gentlemen:

 There is attached copy of Award No. 410, dated June 6, 1977, rendered by Special Board of Adjustment No. 605 established by Article VII of the February 7, 1965 National Agreement.

                        i. W


cc: Chairman - Employes' National
 Conference Committee (10)
 Messrs:
 C. J. Chamberlain
 M. B. Frye
 W. W. Altus, Jr.
 Fred J. Kroll
 E. J. Neal
 S. G. Bishop
 H. C. Crotty
 R. W. Smith
 J. Berta
 R. K. Quinn, Jr.
 W. F. Euker
 T. F. Strunck
                                          AWARD N0. 410

                                          Case No. SG-12-SE


                  SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT h0. 605


PARTIES Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company
 TO THE and
 DISPUTE: Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
 QUESTION "Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
 AT ISSUE: on the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company:

          On behalf of the ten senior signal employees holding seniority on the Atlanta Division for their hourly and monthly overtime (time and one half) rate, beginning July 10, 1975, and continuing for as long as Seaboard Coastline Railroad signal employees perform signal work on L&N property. This claim, account seven SCL Signalmen (1 foreman, 2 signalmen, 4 assistant signalmen) stringing signal wires on L&,N poles, from ACL connection at Tilford Yard to main office building, a distance of about 2 miles. Also one leading signalmen and two signalmen (SCL employees) performing signal work installing relay racks in main office building in preparation for CTC machine; this claim to include the CTC machine, cables, wires and associated circuits, when installed, if these circuits and the CTC machine are installed by SCL signal forces."


ceINION OF This dispute involves two coml)onert companies of what are known as "Family
 THE BOARD:
 Lines System" which is composed of five railroads, the SCL, L&N, Georgia,
 Clinchfield and West Point route. The five carriers operating in the proximity of Atlanta
 planned and implemented a program to coordinate certain operations in Atlanta. As a re
 sult there were in fact, two cbordinations under the Washington Job Protection Agreement.
 One involving clerical employees and the other involving shop craft employees. As part
 of this activity a former L&N facility known as the "Marietta Building" was converted in
 to a transportation center in Atlanta for the use of the five railroads.

 The claim herein, involves SCL signalmen installing SCL cross arms on poles owned by the L&N and stringing SCL wire for a distance of about 2 miles between the SCL Howell Yard and the Marietta Building. SCL employees also installed relay racks and necessary connections for their CTC machines in the Marietta Building. It must be noted that the SCL _..tployees have not alleged that a coordination has been effected at Atlanta. It also must be noted that the record indicates that none of installations pur·ormeo by SCE employees was for L&N use or benefit. It was all work for the exclusive use of SCL Rail-
                            _2- d


road.
The crux of this dispute is whether or not there was a coordination under the terms of the Wasnington Job Protection Agreement. Section 2 (a) of that Agreement defines coordination as follows:

    "The term coordination as used herein means joint action by two or more Carriers whereby they unify, consolidate, merge or pool in whole or in part their separate Railroad facilities or any of the operations or services previously performed by them through such separate facilities."


The record herein indicates that the L&N poles on which the SCL lines were strung were constructed initially by tie Commwiications ikpartment employees. Those employees' Agreement specifically recognized Carrier's right to grant attachment rights on those poles. Carrier alleges, and the record contains no contradiction, that it had granted the SCL attachment rights for the purpose of stringing the signal code wires and those wires were installed exclusively for the SCL's use and purposes. Further, the record indicates, that the second issue involving the CTC machine installation does not involve any equip-,,, ment, even prospectively, for the use of L&N Railroad performed by SCL employees. The record also indicates that the granting and obtaining of attachment rights is common practice on tnis Railroad's property.

 The Was1iington Job Protection Agreement crust be strictly construed as indicated by its own language. It is limited in terms of coordination to changes in employment as defined in that Agreement. The granting of attachment rights similar to the granting of trackage rights by one carrier to another does not meet the definition of coordination. Two other elements of this dispute must be noted as well. One is that in the presentation to this Board, there has been no indication that the signal employees named have been adversely affected by the activities of the SCL signal employees. Second, the processing of this claim on the property lends considerable credence to Carrier's argument that it was processed as a time claim or penalty claim under the schedule Agreement rather than an alleged violation of The Washington Job Protection Agreement. It is quite clear that this Board is not empowered to handle claims of alleged violation under the schedule
                              _3_


Agreement. In view of that fact, plus the obvious conclusion that there has been no coordination in this dispute, the Board has no jurisdiction over this matter and it must be dismissed.

 AWARD
    There has been no coordination under the WJPA and the Committee is without jurisdiction to consider alleged violations of the schedule Agreement. The claim must be dismissed.


                          I.M. Lieberman - Neutral Member


Wasizington, D. C.
 June 6, 1977