u u N 4 1979
SECOND DIVISIOT3

 Award No. 79+7
 Docket No, 7907
 2-CR-EW-'79

 The +eco,dM""nsistea of the regular members and in addition Referee Herb ert Z, P.'arx, Jr. when award was rendered.

 Parties to Dispute;
Dispute: Claim of .E:rraloyes:
System Federation No. 109, Railway Employes'
 Department, A, F, of Z. - C, T. 0.
 (Electrical Workers)

 Consolidated Rail Corporation

That, accordingly, the Carrier be ordered to reimburse each Electrical worker so assigned at the facility for twenty (20) minutes pay for each day so assigned, until the violation is discontinued.



Findings:
The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record. and all the evidence, finds that:

 The carrier or carriers and the em~oloye or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employs within the meaning of the Raihwy Labor Act as approved June 21, 193,

 This Division o=" the i'.djustn.ent Board hate jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

At issue here is the proper application of rules governing lunch periods and pay therefor, as follows:

 "RLTI LE 2

 One Shift

 At the main shops and engine houses where one shift is employed, the staring time shall not be earlier than

 7:00 A.M. or later than X3:00

 unless otherwise agreed
 Form 1 Award No. 79+7
 Page 2 Docket ITO. 7907
 2-CR-RVd- ` 79
 "upon. The tune and length of lunch period, without
 pay, shall be subject to mutual agreement,"
 "RULE 3
 Two Shifts







        At the slain shops and engine houses where three shifts are employed, the starting time of the first shift shall be governed by Rule 2, and the startin ; time for each foLl.o:n.ng shift shall be regulated accordingly. The spread of each shift shall consist of eight consecutive hours, including an allowance of twenty minutes for lunch with pay within the limits of the fifth hour."


Prior to trpril 1, 1976, the former Reading Railroad operated two shop areas in Reading -- one generally designated as the enginehouse area and the other as the car shop area. The Reading Railroad became part oz' the Consolidated Rail Corporation (the "Carrier"), and these two maintenance areas carne under the supervision of a General Superintendent. The enginehouse area operated and continues to operate on a three-shift basis, while the car shop area operated and continues to operate on a one or two-shift basis.

 On April 1, 1976, the new General Superintendent changed the meal arrangement so that employees in the car shop area received a 20-minute paid meal period instead of a 30-minute non-paid meal period as was true previously.

 After notification to and consultation with the Organization (and other organizations represeating other crafts), the Carrier went back to its former arrangement by placing car shop area employes on a 30-minute non-paid meal period.

    The Organization argues that the 20-minute paid lunch period is proper,


sizes a the changes of April 1, 1976, created a single area, under one General Superintendent, with the provisions of Rule 4 applicable to all employes.
 Form 1 Award No. 791+7
 Page 3 Docket No, 7907
 2-cR-Ew-'79

 The Board finds the Organization does not have solid basis for its claim, and that reversion by the Carrier to the lunch period arrangement prior to April 1, 176, has foundation in the Agreement, absent changes in working schedules from a one or two.-shif-t arrangement to a threeshift arrangement.

 The Organization has failed to show that the car shop area and -the enginehouse area have been somehow com;:.ingled or that there are any actual changes in work arrangements upon acquisition of the facilities by the Carrier. On this basis, there :is no mandate under Rule 4 to require the Carrier to place Car Shop employes on a 2_0-minute paid lunch period.

 It is patently true that the General Superintendent did make such a. change, which vra,s in effect from April 1, 1976, to February 1, 1977. There was, however, no requirement under the A:;reement bet-;reen the parties for this charge, and it was not tLndertaken by joint consL~..tation and agreement between representatives of the Carrier and Organization empo-,,,ered to make such changes. Yany avaards of the Board have substantiated that a practice, even ~~,1liere instigated by a supervisor, cannot defeat the clear language of the Agreement. As one ex_armale, Third Division Award No. 203?3 (Sic=>les),, dealing -vith a different benefit provision., states in part:

        "The fact that certain Carrier Officials may have incorrectly stated an entitlement to premium pay does not, :in the view of the Board, bind the Carrier under the facts and. circumstances of this record, ,.,"


The acquisition of the Reading Railroad by a new owner and the installation of a common supervisory official over several functions does not disturb the deJree of pre-existing benefit entitlear_ents to the affected employes. Nor are the applicable Rules modified i n their meaning and applicability by the unilateral and temporary decision of a Carrier official.

 Having reached this conclusion, the Board need not concern itself with the Carrier's argzr:ent in this dispute that the Crg~.nizwtion failed to pro~rvae the names of specific grievants.

                      AwAR D


    Claim denied.


    NATIOT~r1T~ REIILROf,.D ADJUST1,1111T BOARD By order of Second Division Attest: Executive Secretary National Railroad Adjustment Board


By r.- p ~. ~//l ~--~'- ~._~-" ° -,
    ---

    t se:,,~arie Drascli - Aarninistrative Assistant


    Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of May, 179.