Form 1 Award No. 6754
 Page 8 Docket No. 6541
 2-MP-CM-174










                        By Order of Second Division


Attest: Executive Secretary
 Rational Railroad Adjustment Board

 By
 ~osemarie Branch - Administrative Assistant

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of July, 1974.
 Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 6755
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 6542
 2-83r0-MA- ' 74

    The Second Division consisted of the regular Members and in addition Referee Irving T. Bergman whan'award eras rendered.


                ( International Association of Machinists and

                ( Aerospace Workers

Parties to Disgnte:

                  Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company


Dispute: Claim of Em 1D 0vea:
        1. That under the Controlling Agreement, the Carrier damaged Machinist J. P. Arnold, when they abolished a Supervisor position of the 3:00 P.M. to 11:00 P.M. shift and assigned his to perforce said mark without the adjustment in pay.


That accordingly the Carrier be ordered to compensate the
 Claimant the adjustment in pay at the pro rata hourly rate
 frog that of a Machinist to a Supervisor, for the dates of
 January 28, 29, 30, February 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 1972.

 Fidd in e
The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

 The carrier or carriers and the employe or employee involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employe within the leaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.

 This Division of the Adjustment Board has jariidiction over the dispute involved herein.

 Parties to said diaptte waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.

 Claimant is a regularly assigned machinist at the Connellsville Shops which the Carrier describes as primarily a running repair and dispatching point on the Pittsburgh Division. Prior to Febduary 1, 1972, an Assistant Engine House Foreman was assigned to the first and second shifts and two non-contract General Foremen worked the first and third shifts. The third shift General Foreman retired on February 1, 1972. According to the Carrisr, he was net replaced became of the drastic decline in haidling coal tonnage which resulted from ecological concerns in the use of coal. Instead, the contract covered Assistant Engine House Foremen's position on the second shift was abolished and he was assigned to the third shift. As a result, no position and no
 Fore 1 Award No. 6755
 Page 2 Docket No. 6542
 2-B&0_MA-' 74 ,___r

 person under the Supervisor's Agreement was assigned to the second shift. The Carrier also states theft work was rearranged to beat utilize the services of the~superviaora assigned to the first and third shifts. However, the relief supervisor for the rest days of the supervisors on the first and third shifts worked the fifth day of his assignment on the second shift. Claimant states that except for the one day worked by the relief supervisor, he was performing the supervisory duties on the second shift and was entitled to the rate of pay of a supervisor.

 The Petitioner's Submission states that ha was instructed by General Foreman Keenan to telephone the Chief Dispatcher at Pittsburgh every two hours relative to dispmttchmenta, log inbound and outbound locomotives for dispatchments, direct the movement of locomotives on the ready track so that they could be cede ready and dispatched in the proper sequence and on time.

 The Carrier's Submission states that the first shift operation in addition to dispatching power performed fore and maintenance pork on assigned switcher twits and also running repairs on road locomotive: requiring house attention, and tyat this type of work required direction from experienced and knowledgeable supervisors. The third shift in addition to dispatching power, also prepared 24 hour delay reports for the Pittsburgh Division, figures on shopped locomotives, derailment reports, status of units moving in trouble *tees and entering sack information on the various code-a-phones located at Hungington, Pittsburgh and Cumbncland, before 7 A.M. on etch tour of duty. Also, because the third shift did not include an electrician, decisions were made on disposition of locomotives with electrical items reported by inbound engineers. The second shift operation was set up for dispotchment of locomotive consists.-. only, which was routine and repetitive and thus did not require any direct supervision. The number of units for each consist and which units were to be used in a consist was detersined.by the Chief Dispatcher of the Yardmaster. The information was relayed by phone or intercoms to 'the Locomotive Department Office. The General Foreman told etch. of the four employee, including claimant, to answer the phone and intercom to receive information from the General Fore®n or Yardmaster regarding locomotive consists for outbound trains, and that whoever received the information should note it on the dispatehment board and tell it to the other 3 employes; that this function was not assigned to claimant exclusively; that such communication is not exclusively a function of a supervisor.

 It is noted that the claim made on the property, Employe's Exhibit A, refers to the instruction to phone every two hours for information, to log this and to inform the-other employer. In the Submission, Petitioner has added the function of directing. locomotive movement on, the ready track so that they can be made ready and dispatched in the proper sequence and on time. It is elementary that we are limited to the positions of the parties in the handling on the property.
 Form 1 Award No. 6755
 page 3 Docket No. 6542
 2-B&O-MA-'74

 The Carrier opposed the dais on two grounds namely: That Rule 13 relied upon by Petitioner which provides for higher pay in performing higher rated jobs ia~a Shop Crafts Agreement not applicable to this situation because it covers only higher rated Shop Crafts work under that Agreement. It does not refer to supervisor's positions or to any other Agreement., In any event, claimant ryas not responaible.to direct movements on the ready track and the on time readiness and dispatching of consists, only to perform according to infarmntioa received by telephone.

 Regardless of the technical defense, it is clear that the Carrier does not want claimant to accept the duties and ~responsibilities of a supervisor. The Carrier insists that it wants each of the four employes assigned to the second shift to perform only their regular duties pursuant to infarct tion given over the telephone. If the Carrier !Afants to operate in this manner on this shift without a supervisor present to giveninstructiona and to be responsible for carrying out the instructions that is its prerogative. The absence of a supervisor does not automatically make any_empioye a supervisor. According to the Carrier, it expects each employs to perform his duties properly according to telephoned instructions, nothiag,more.

 If the Cartier wished to elevate the employes to supervisory positions, that must be demonstrated by positive proof, not by inference
 or asserting. The petitioner has the burden of such proof.

 The Record indicates only 'that claimant has concluded that his position is supervisory. The Carrier disputes this and it is not for this Board to fudge what way be intended Eras other than demonstrated objective standards. For example: The Record does sot disclose the former supervisor's duties and responsibilities on this shift so that we may determine that the claimant is now performing his supervisory function; nor does the Record indicate the extent of the work done on the second shift before the supervisor's position was abolished and the work rearranged with the first and third shifts which are now under supervision.
We find that taking instruction over the phone, noting the information and relying tt to the other employee assigned, is not supervisory work. No claim has been ride or facts set forth to prove that this is the work of any higher paid fob in the Shop Crafts Agreement. The Petitioner has failed to sustain the burden of proving its claim; Second Division Awards No's. 5297, 61229 5340, 6467; Third Division Awards No's. 12008, 13031, 16439.

                        A W A R D


    Claim Denied.

Fore 1 Award No. 6755
 Page 4 Docket No. 6542
 ' 2-B&0-MA -t 74

                      NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                      By Order of Second Division


Attest: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 .~
 8Y
 ~osezarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant

 Dated at fhica go, Illinois, this 30th day of July, 1974.

 a