This is not the first occasion that Carriers have required employees to cross craft boundaries and perform duties of another craft. 

A sampling of awards addressing the subject of crossing craft boundaries have held that Carrier erred by requiring employees to do so.

In First Division Award No. 14225 (Weeks) a yardmaster performed the duty of assisting a yard crew by passing signals to the engineer. In sustaining the claim the majority held in part:

"Claim by yardman first out on the extra board for minimum day on account of the yardmaster performing switchmen's work.

"A three man crew was switching a 26 car train. The engine was behind a scale house. The yardmaster assisted in passing signals to the engineer. This was a duty which should have been performed by another yardman. While this in and of itself is not a grave violation of the rules, it must not be permitted as it would encourage working smaller crews than ordinarily required and allowing them to accept assistance from whoever was available which might cause accidents.

"The violation of the rules is admitted but a request is made for no penalty. However, it has been consistently held in previous awards that the chief means of redress by employes for violation of such rules is to file time claims." (Emphasis ours)

In First Division Award No. 20258 (Abernethy) a yardmaster doubled over a departing train which entailed making a cut on cars, throwing one or more switches and flagging automobile traffic. The Carrier in that dispute, as here, argued "no work belonging exclusively to yardmen was performed" and "no standing to claim lost earnings." The majority rejected these arguments. In sustaining the claim, it was held in part:

"We find that Yardmaster Camborn did assist the road crew double Train No. 761 on September 15 and 17, 1953; that in so doing he performed work which for years prior thereto had been performed by a yardman assigned to a yard engine working in the vicinity.

"This Division has heretofore held, and so holds in this case, that yardmasters performing service such as that complained of here do so in violation of the yard agreement. . . ."

First Division Award No. 21637 was adopted without the assistance of a referee. The majority sustained the claim because a Roadmaster threw switches which are customarily performed by a trainman.

In First Division Award No. 22648 (O'Brien) the majority relied on previous awards addressing the same subject as precedent in its holding. Sustaining the claim, the majority held in part:

"It is further matter of undisputed fact that on claim date, Yardmaster Millhoff threw a switch in connection with the movement of a cut of cars he was supervising.

"This Division has sustained similar claims, Awards Nos. 14225, 20258, 20231 and 21637, and they are applicable here. . . ."

In Third Division Award No. 11072 (Dorsey) the majority, in sustaining the claim, held in part:

"The Railway Labor Act does not deal with a Carrier's assignment of work. This Board determines issues concerning assignment of work only from interpretation and construction of existing agreements between the parties in the light of the law of contracts plus history, tradition, and custom in the industry. In drawing conclusions that lie beyond the direct expression of the text, the Board resorts to elements known from and given in the text - conclusions which are in the spirit, though not within the letter of the text. Such conclusions have the same legal recognition as conclusions which are in the letter of the text.

* * *

"In general, it is a well established principle of labor law that a collective bargaining agreement reserves to the employes in the collective bargaining unit the performance of the work of the positions within the unit when the employer requires the performance of such work. There may, of course, be expressed exceptions. In addition, there may be unstated exceptions which the parties can be found to have intended in view of history, tradition or custom. Here we find no evidence to support an exception, expressed or implied.

"A collective bargaining contract which, absent expressed or implied exception, does not vest the right to the work, when required, in the employes within the collective bargaining unit would have form without substance. The work is the catalyst which gives substance to the Rules pertaining to rates of pay, hours of work, seniority, working conditions, etc. If the Carrier remained free to assign, unilaterally, the work to whosoever it chooses, crossing craft and class lines, the over twenty (20) Rules in the Agreement, here being interpreted and applied, would be for naught in that they would have meaning only at the whim of Carrier."

Each of the foregoing awards have sustained the Employees' position when claim was made when other employees performed work customarily and historically performed by their craft.

Of greater importance are the following Fourth Division Awards. These awards sustained the yardmasters' position when claim was submitted because the Carrier, in the exercise of its managerial prerogative, required them to perform duties customarily and historically performed by other crafts.

In Fourth Division Award No. 2104 (Weston) a yardmaster was required to ride an engine in order to have the proper number of employees so as to comply with a full crew law. The majority rejected as controlling a portion of the yardmasters' agreement that stated ". . . the yardmaster shall perform such other work as may be directed." In sustaining the claim the majority held in part:

"Carrier emphasizes Rule 1 of the Agreement, which provides that `The duties of Yardmaster shall consist generally in the supervision of, or in assisting in the supervision of, the work of employes engaged in making and breaking up trains, in the movement of cars within the yard to which the yardmaster is assigned, in general yard switching, and in the calling of crews; and, in addition, the yardmaster shall perform such other and further work as may be directed.' The clause, `The yardmaster shall perform such other and further work as may be directed' is not sufficiently broad to authorize Carrier to ignore craft lines and use yardmasters to discharge firemen's responsibilities or perform other services that are completely unrelated to the yardmaster duties specified in other portions of Rule 1. While the claimants did not work while in the engine cabs, they did perform service merely by being there. There is no evidence of past practice or of any other circumstance that supports Carrier's case, and we find no basis for denying this claim. ...we will sustain the claim in its entirety."

In Fourth Division Award No. 2928 (O'Brien) the majority sustained the claim by holding the Carrier erred in requiring the yardmaster to perform work customarily and historically performed by trainmen. It was held in part:

"... We agree with the Organization's contention that during this period Carrier has required the claimants to perform duties outside the scope of their collective bargaining agreement. The work performed by yardmasters, prior to the yard being placed on full automatic operation, was car retarder work which has on this property been the work of trainmen or switchmen and cannot be considered incidental to the duties of a yardmaster. It is immaterial that the work merely consisted of moving a lever or pressing a button on a console, as Carrier contends, as this Board considers the kind and character of the work controlling rather than the method of performing it. And in the present claim, the work performed during the claim period was clearly car retarder work although admittedly it was performed in the tower and not physically in the yard.

* * *

"Having found a violation of the Yardmasters Agreement during the period in question, we conclude that damages should be awarded even though no claimant suffered any monetary loss during this period."

In Fourth Division Award No. 2968 (O'Brien) the majority rejected in that dispute the same arguments relied on by Carrier in the case at bar, i.e., general Scope Rule, no pay due claimant. In sustaining the claim, the majority held in part:

"Carrier denied the claim contending that the Scope Rule in question is general in nature and merely identifies the class of employees covered by the Agreement. It does not prohibit assignment of the work in question to employees covered by the Yardmasters Agreement. Thus, Carrier maintains, the Rule was not violated when claimant was required to service the cabin cars.

"This Board concludes that the work of servicing cabin cars is definitely not work belonging to the yardmaster craft. In the claim before us Carrier arbitrarily ignored craft lines and used a yardmaster to perform duties completely alien to those duties accruing to yardmasters through the application of the Yardmasters Agreement. The servicing of cabin cars is not generally recognized as yardmaster work and Carrier violated claimant's contractual rights by requiring him to perform them. And since the Agreement was violated we feel that claimant is entitled to damages as claimed." (Emphasis ours)