BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES
and
NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION (AMTRAK)
NORTHEAST CORRIDOR
AWARD NO. 4
In the other instance, the organization stated in a claim dated November 2, 1992 as follows:
The referenced October 28, 199,2 letter was in connection with a related matter and stated in part as follows:
At the outset, the Carrier contends that the claims are not in proper order since they concern alleged anticipated actions, rather than events which have actually occurred. However, from the record and by reference to other related claims currently before the Board, it can readily be determined that the Carrier has commenced its proposed integration of assignments into the Electronic Technician classification. Thus, the issue is properly before the Board for resolution.
On April 12, 1983 the carrier and the Organization negotiated an agreement to add the classification of Electronic Technician to the position descriptions in the Work Classification Rule.. The description of the new classification was stated as follows:
This position was established in anticipation of the introduction of the Centralized Electrification and Traffic control system beginning in 1984. Without reviewing in detail the advances in electronic techniques initiated by the Carrier, it is sufficient to note that computer-based "supervisory control equipment" plays a growing role in the Carrier's electric traction operation.
There has long been in effect the position of ElectricianRelay, which classification is described as follows:
As described by the organization, this work is performed in connection with the "25 cycle protection system . . . designed to protect the transformers, trolley circuits and bus sections".
The Carrier contends that, with continuing advances in electronic techniques and equipment, the job functions of the Electronic Technician and the Electrician-Relay "are becoming essentially one and the same". The Organization argues that the two positions continue to have separate responsibilities -- one for
the SCADA system and the other continuing in the 25 cycle protection system.
In 1992, the Carrier determined that the job functions of the Electrician-Relay should be incorporated "by attrition" into that of the Electronic Technician, under the following conditions:
In support of this action, the Carrier relies on Paragraph 1(e) of the Scope Rule, which reads as follows:
The Carrier also points to the agreed classification definition for Electronic Technician which refers to SCADA "and remote control and protection of Electric Traction facilities" (emphasis added). The Carrier thus argues that, from the outset, the Electronic Technician position was not limited to SCADA functions only -- a contention with which the organization disagrees.
The organization argues that there has been no "gradual disappearance of the work" assigned to Electricians-Relay and
states "there remain, literally thousands of relays, meters and contactors left on the property to be maintained, repaired and replaced". The Organization does not view Scope Rule Paragraph 1(e) as permitting the wholesale re-assignment of existing established work from one classification to another. As to the 1983 classification definition of Electronic Technician, the organization argues that it was intended for employees assigned to the SCADA system and did not refer to the existing and continuing assignments of Electricians-Relay.
The Carrier places great emphasis on the Electronic Technician classification description in that it refers to "electronic and electromagnetic components" and separately concerns "remote control" and "protection". From this, the Carrier assumes that the description was designed to encompass the work performed by Electricians-Relay. The Board does not find such a broad definition in the description. The "electronic and electromagnetic components" are those associated with SCADA. The "remote control" aspect is not challenged, and the "protection" could readily be assumed to include the modifier "remote". If the description had been designed to anticipate encompassing Electrician-Relay functions, such could readily have been specified in a more direct manner. Further, the meaning sought here by the Carrier is inferred a full ten years after the adoption of the Electronic Technician Agreement,- leaving room for doubt that this was the original intention.
The Board also does not agree with the Carrier's interpretation of Scope Rule Paragraph 1(e). It is clear that the Rule does not require the Carrier to establish or maintain positions, and it preserves the Carrier's right to abolish positions. Work does not have to be assigned "exclusively" to a classification in which it is listed, and this affects the work of Electronic Technicians, some of which may be similar or identical to that of ElectricianRelays. Having said this, however, the Board finds that the Scope Rule does not offer support for the absorption of all the continuing duties of one classification into another classification. Such attempted action is contrary to other portions of the Scope Rule as well as to the seniority rights of affected employees.
Thus,. the Carrier's proposed (and presumably now actual) unilateral move to "discontinue the position" of Electrician-Relay is in violation of the Agreement, and the claims herein must be sustained. As set forth in the Statement of Claim, the Organization seeks to have the issue "addressed by the parties". The Carrier is directed to undertake such interchange, in the meantime halting any further implementation of the changes discussed herein.