It is the Employes position that the Carrier violated the Scope Rule of the current Signalmen's Agreement when, on January 31, 1961, it required two employes not covered by the Signalmen's Agreement to transport signal material to the work site and then required or permitted these employes to help install and replace the signal material in question; that the Claimant in the instant dispute, holds seniority on the entire Carrier's system and is entitled to be paid for three (3) hours at his overtime rate of pay account of this alleged violation. Carrier contends that is has not farmed out any work covered by the Scope Rule of the Signalmen's Agreement; that the two Signal Maintainers were instructed and so performed the work in question, in its entirety on January 31, 1961; that the transporting of material to the work site is not work exclusively belonging to Signalmen; that the Claimant, R. L. Teece, was on duty and under pay performing work on his assigned territory at the date and hour the work here was performed, therefore, since Columbus, Georgia is not within the assigned territory of Mr. Teece, the Claimant, he has not been deprived of anything and is an improper Claimant. The Scope Rule of the Signalmen's Agreement reads: "SCOPE "This agreement covers the rates of pay, hours of service and working conditions of all employes, classified herein, engaged in the construction, installation, repairing, inspecting, testing and maintenance of all interlocking systems and devices; signals and signal systems; wayside devices and equipment for train stop and train control; car retarder and car retarder systems; centralized traffic control systems operative gate mechanism; operative highway crossing protective devices; spring switch mechanism; electric switch targets together with wires and cables; iron train order signals; signal cantilevers, power or other lines,, with poles, fixtures, conduit systems, transformers, arrestors and wires or cables pertaining to interlocking and signal systems; interlocking and signal lighting; storage battery plants with charging outfits and switch board equipment; sub stations, current generating and compressed air plants, exclusively used by the Signal Department, pipe lines and connections used for Signal Department purposes; carpenter, concrete and form work in connection with signal and interlocking systems (except that required in buildings, towers and signal bridges); together with all appurtenances pertaining to the above named systems and devices, as well as any other work generally recognized as signal work." : Award 10051 and particularly Award 5046 are cited as authority by the Petitioner to sustain their contention; that movement of such materials to a job site for immediate use on such job, is the exclusive work of Signalmen. Award 5046 reads in part: "... but work in connection with the movement of such materials from a warehouse or material yard to a signal construction or maintenance job for immediate use on such job, is the exclusive work of Signalmen. Awards 3826, 3689, 4797, 4978." The same question of exclusivity of work for Signalmen in delivery or transporting signal material, as well as the same cited authority of Awards 5046 and 10051, were interpreted by this Board in Docket No. SG-13315, Award 13347. "No Awards have been found that support the proposition that the movement of material from a warehouse or material yard to a signal construction job, is the exclusive work of Signalmen though such work might be the Signalmen's in a given case . . ." We find that the transporting of signal material to the job site, as described herein, is not work exclusively belonging to Signalmen. The Scope Rule of the Signal Agreement does not specifically mention the transporting of signal materials to job sites, as that work reserved to the Signalmen. It is apparent from the record, materials have been picked up and delivered to job sites by other Crafts or Classes. Transporting or delivery is not "any other work generally recognized as signal work," or has the Organization shown that Signalmen have performed such work to the exclusion of others. The Union also alleges, that on the date in question, involved the use of a company truck, equipped with a hoist and boom, regularly assigned to the Communications Section, was operated by two employes not covered by the Signalmen's Agreement, in helping the two assigned Signalmen, to raise and set the pole. Signal Maintainer Andrews and Traveling Maintainer Garlington received the following instructions from their Supervisor: to perform all of the work in question at the job site; that Andrews, placed in charge, could use own discretion in operating the hoist and boom on the truck to complete the assignment; if he lacked confidence in operating said mechanism, he could request an employe of the Communication Section to operate the rigging; that if he so requested its operation he was to "stand by" and direct the raising of the pole into the hole. The hole was dug by both Signalmen and Mr. Andrews, per instruction, used discretion by directing the Communication employe to raise and set the pole. Mr. Andrews stood by while Traveling Signal Maintainer Garlington guided the pole into the hole and Andrews subsequently helped fill in around the pole. Carrier stated on the property that Mr. Andrews had received prior instructions on the operation of such a rig from the Supervisor of Communications and Signals. Both parties assertions are in conflict as to Mr. Andrews qualifications and experience to operate the rig in question on the job site. Such burden is on the Petitioner. In Award 11451, the Carrier used a trench-digging machine to dig trenches for signal cables and pipelines. An employe not covered by the Signalmen's Agreement actually operated the machine but a Signalman was placed on it and paid for the time spent on the job. He was also instructed to direct the operation of the machine. The Board said: "It is conceded that the work belonged to Signalmen under the Agreement, but it is not denied that no Signalman at the time was qualified to operate the trench-digging machine." "Under these set of facts, the claim is without merit and will be denied." In Award 12187 the contention in that dispute arose out of use of a crane for hole digging and use of personnel other than Signalmen for picking up scrap. The Board said: "... Consistent and uniform with past decisions of this Board, the Carrier is free to assign to others work not specifically listed in the Scope Rule." and "... evidence disclosed Signalmen standing by and not qualified to operate the crane. This practice did not violate the Scope Rule." We find, therefore, the Carrier in the instant case had the prerogative to direct the Signalmen in the performance of the work in question and did not violate the Scope Rule. There is no prohibition in the Signalmen's Agreement as to Communications employes performing such work. FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving the parties to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon, and upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds: That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934; That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of June 1965. DISSENT TO AWARD NO. 13708 DOCKET SG-13539 Award No. 13708 does violence to the sound doctrine when it overrules Awards Nos. 5046 and 10051, and when it quotes out of context from Award No. 13347. So noting, it is not necessary to enumerate the Majority's other errors. Award No. 13708 is in error; therefore, I dissent. /s/ W. W. Altus W. W. Altus 7/26/65 Docket No. MW-14573 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD THIRD DIVISION Herbert J. Mesigh, Referee PARTIES TO DISPUTE: BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES NEW YORK CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that: (1) The Carrier has been in violation of the Agreement and of practices thereunder when, beginning with December 5, 1961, it discontinued the use of drawbridge operators on the Maumee River bridge and assigned the traditional and customary work of said drawbridge operators to telegraph operators stationed at the Wabash Tower, West of the Maumes River Bridge. (2) The Carrier has been in further violation of the Agreement and of practices thereunder when, beginning at 7:00 A. M. on December 16, 1961, it discontinued the use of drawbridge operators on Bridge No. 8% at Indiana Harbor, Indiana and assigned the traditional and customary work of said drawbridge operators to telegraphers. (3) (a) The Carrier be required to restore the drawbridge operators' work at the Maumee River bridge to drawbridge operators holding seniority on the Western District seniority roster. (b) The four (4) senior furloughed drawbridge operators on the Western District seniority roster be compensated for all monetary losses sustained as a result of the violation referred to the Part (1) of this claim. (4) (a) The Carrier be required to restore the drawbridge operators' work at Bridge No. 82. Indiana Harbor, Indiana, to drawbridge operators holding seniority on the Western District seniority roster. (b) Drawbridge Operators W. B. Baker, W. C. Schroeder, A. M. Hardesty, E. E. Cain, H. L. Cain and all others adversely effected by the violation referred to in Part (2) of this claim be compensated for all monetary losses sustained as a result of said violation. EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Under date of December 6, 1963, the Brotherhood withdrew Parts (1) and (3) of our Statement of Claim and, therefore, they are not here in issue. Ever since Drawbridge No. 82, Indiana Harbor, Indiana, has been in operation on this property, the operation thereof has been exclusively assigned to and performed by employes holding seniority within the scope of this Carrier's agreement with the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes. Immediately preceding December 16, 1961, drawbridge operators holding seniority within the scope of the subject agreement were assigned on a three shift, seven day per week basis as follows: The duties of the claimants, in addition to operating Bridge No. 8%, included the operation of three other drawbridges located nearby. All these drawbridges were operated from the H. C. Tower, which is located immediately adjacent to Bridge No. 82. Also located in the H. C. Tower were Telegrapher employes, whose assignments were based on a three shift, seven day per week operation. Under date of December 4, 1961, these employes received a notice reading: "Chicago, Illinois All Operators H. C. Tower, Indiana Harbor, Ind. Effective 12:01 A. M. Saturday, December 16, 1961 you are required to assume the additional duties of handling the operation of the Bridges, such as formerly performed by the Bridge Operators. Arrangements have been made to have a qualified Bridgeman on hand to qualify those who have no knowledge of the operation of the Bridges. /s/ R. M. Strickland Division Rules Examiner cc: JJD, RWL, LEW, NKC, VBW, JSF, WB" Under date of December 8, 1961, the claimants were instructed: "December 8, 1961 All Bridge Operators You will assist Towermen at H. C. Tower and any personell authorized to be instructed in the operation of the Bridges at Brg. 82, Indiana Harbor, Indiana. /s/ W. H. McLaughlin Effective at 7:00 A. M. On December 16, 1961, each of the five aforementioned positions of drawbridge operators were abolished and all of the duties of each of these five positions were unilaterally and arbitrarily transferred |