AWARDS 63 - ORGANIZATION MUST PROVE EXCLUSIVITY SYSTEM-WIDE IN SCOPE CASES

Public Law Board No. 4093, Award 15 (Zusman)

"As to other duties which may be assigned, the Organization emphasizes that its forces have exclusively called taxi service for crews at Hinton. It does not rebut Carrier's assertion that other crafts perform this function elsewhere on the system. System-wide exclusivity must be shown to prevail and such a showing has not been made in this record (Third Division Awards 21132, 20179, 16787; Fourth Division Awards 3763, 3482)."

Second Division Award No. 12071 (Suntrup)

"The Organization has not proven exclusivity to the work of disassembly and assembly of the metal shelving racks by Agreement language, nor have they established work jurisdiction rights by means of evidence of a system-wide past practice. Nor was jurisdiction over this work by this craft an exclusive practice on a former component property."

Second Division Award No. 12072 (Suntrup)

"It is well established that where Agreement language does not grant exclusivity with regard to the assignment of work then the burden is on the Organization to show that the aggrieved work is reserved to their craft by system-wide practice historically, traditionally, and customarily (Second Division Awards 5525, 5921, 11162 and 11246)."

Second Division Award No. 12073 (Suntrup)

"In summary, neither Rules 53 nor 103 of the applicable Agreement assign the aggrieved work to the Organization. This Board has consistently held that the burden is on the Organization to prove by competent evidence that work it claims to have been reserved to its members be reserved to them historically, traditionally, and customarily on system-wide basis (Second Division Awards 5525, 5921). That burden has not been adequately met here."

Second Division Award No. 12075 (Suntrup)

"Since Agreement language does not exclusively assign this work to the Organization, a second avenue available to establish jurisdiction is a showing of system-wide practice reserved `historically, traditionally, and customarily' to this craft. (Second Division Awards 5525 and 5921.) No such practice has been established. . . ."

Second Division Award No. 12104 (Muessig)

"The Organization has the burden to show that the work at issue is reserved to it by rule or that it has a system-wide past practice of exclusivity. It has not met either requirement. While it is apparent that the Organization has done some of the type of work as at issue here, the record also shows that the Maintenance of Way Employees have always done this type of work as well as the removal of switch and socket plates in preparation for painting."

Second Division Award No. 12518 (McMurray)

"A long list of awards by this Board have held that absent clear and unambiguous Agreement language, the Organization must establish the fact that the work under consideration has historically and exclusively been performed by the craft on a system-wide basis. In this case the Organization does not even claim system-wide practice. It is obvious from the record that no such practice exists."

Third Division Award No. 29528 (LaRocco)

"We are unpersuaded by the Organization's attempts to distinguish Award 27827. On this property the applicable Agreement contains a general scope rule. Public Law Board No. 2281, Award 1. Thus, to show that the disputed work is reserved to the clerical craft, the Organization must show that the class and craft of clerks have historically performed the disputed work to the exclusion of all others across the system unless the work is expressly enumerated in Rule 1. Third Division Award 25571, 25003. Even if a manager performs the work, the Organization must still show systemwide exclusivity absent precedential Awards on this property that performance of work by a supervisory employee relaxes the Organizations burden of proof (to point exclusivity) under the general scope rule. Third Division Award 28323. Thus, the fact that an Assistant Trainmaster performed the work in this case did not relieve the Organization of its burden of proving the work was reserved to clerks under Rule 1 through Rule 2-E. Finally, Award 27827 did not draw any distinction among the various types of weighing devices. Award 27827 addressed the disputed work, that is, the weighing of cars without differentiating between what device is used to weigh the cars."

Third Division Award No. 29530 (LaRocco)

"With regard to rule 32-G, the Organization failed to muster sufficient proof that clerical employees exclusively performed the disputed work on a systemwide basis. Regardless of whether or not Claimant historically performed the work at the Kansas City shops, the record does not contain sufficient evidence that the disputed work is performed across the Carrier's system by clerical employees. Furthermore, it is highly likely that local chairmen for the various shop craft labor organizations are intimately involved in the movements of their members from job to job under the displacement and assignment rules in their Agreements."