Special Board of Adjustment No. 1016
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees
and
Consolidated Rail Corporation
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
"(1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it
assigned Car Shop employees to perform Bridge and
Building Department work (painting) at the Car Shop
in Columbus, Ohio on January 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7,
1986 (System Dockets CR-2450 and CR-2451).
(2) Because of the aforesaid violation, Messrs. E. A.
Sellers, R. N. Williams and J. K. Lafferty shall
each be allowed forty (40) hours of pay at their
respective straight time rates."
FINDINGS:
The claim is that carrier violated the Scope Rule by
using certain named Car Shop employees rather than the
claimants to paint interior walls, window sills and doorways
at the Car Shop offices in Buckeye Yard at Columbus, Ohio.
According to Petitioner, each of these car shop employees
performed that painting work for eight hours on the five
dates mentioned above in the Statement of Claim.
As Petitioner emphasizes, the Scope Rule of the
applicable agreement expressly covers the "maintenance of...'~buildings and other structures and specifics that the primary
duties of B&B mechanics are to "construct, repair and
1
id)c.P-3z1
maintain bridges, buildings and other structures."
Petitioner contends, and we agree, that such maintenance
includes the painting of interior walls and other portions of
buildings.
The record indicates that the above mentioned painting
of the Car Shop at Buckeye Yard is the work of painters in
the B&B Department and should not be performed by Car
Department employees. Each of the claimants states that the
named carmen nevertheless repainted parts of the car Shop on
January 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7, 1986. The following statement
dated November 13, 1986 and signed by five of the nine carmen
named by the claimants is also relevant:
"During the month of January, 1986, we, the carmen
of the Buckeye Yard Car Repairshop, painted various
parts of the Buckeye Yard Car Shop including the
building proper, building support posts, interior
walls, storage racks, hose reels and supports, and'
other building structures. In the past, the B&B Dept.
has performed these tasks."
While two of those five carmen (Crabtree and Loring)
subsequently modified their statements by indicating that
they did not paint any walls though they did paint supports,
the other three signing carmen did not revise their
statements in any way.
The evidence submitted by Petitioner, though not
overwhelming, is sufficiently clear and specific to support
the claim. Despite statements by carrier foremen that the
carmen did not paint any of the areas mentioned above, it is
this Board's conclusion that carmen painted interior walls,
2
ioicP-34
supports and other parts of the building in question and that
thereby the Scope Rule was violated.
We regard any improper siphoning off of work from a
collective bargaining agreement as an extremely serious
contract violation, one that can deprive the agreement of
much of its meaning and undermine its provisions. In order
to preserve the integrity of the agreement and enforce its
provisions, the present claim will be sustained in its
entirety. Contrary to Carrier's contentions, we do not find
that the absence of a penalty provision or the fact that
claimants were employed full time on the five dates in
question deprives the Board of jurisdiction to award damages
in this situation.
AWARD: Claim sustained. To be effective within 30 days.
Adopted at Philadelphia, PA
?~'
, 1989
Harold -Weston, Chairman
Ca er Employee Member
3