Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 795+
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 7664
 2 -MP-EW- ' 79

( System Federation No. 2, Railway Employes'
 ( Department, A. F. of L. - C. I. 0.
 Parties to Dispute: ( (Electrical Workers)
 (
 (Missouri Pacific Railroad Company

 D i s_pute : Claim of E~r?.ploye s












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

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

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

The Claimants in this docket are Electrical Apprentices in the Electrician's craft at Carrier's North Little Rock Diesel facility. The Apprentice Training _'robraan for Electrician Apprentices covers 976 work days, ox approxax:~wtel.y 1+ years. Dt'u.'ing their training period such Apprentices are afforded every opportunity to learn all phases of the electrical trade.

 At North Little Rock Carrier overhauls diesel locomotives in its older building at Pike Avenue. There they are, 5.n effect, rebuilt from -the bottom up. In addition wreck damage is also repaired. Also, Electrician Apprentices are moved from one location, in the Pike Avenue facility, to another, such as the annual house, the wheel shop, the traction rnotor shop, and etc. In addition, there is also another diesel facility, which was constructed
 Form 1 Award No. 795
 Page 2 Docket No. 7661+
 2-MP-EW-179

 adjacent to the new automatic hump yard, known as the "1+00 Yard Facility" where diesel locomotives are serviced, inspected and repairs are made which do not require sending such locanatives to the Pike Avenue facilities. The Apprentices are moved from location to location and the desired training aspect or phase is not always possible to be assigned to Apprentices on the first shift because a mechanic and the txumber of Apprentices are controlled, if not strongly influenced by an agreed upon ratio` Consequently, some Apprentices are scheduled, at times, during a particular phase of their training to work on the second shift.

 The five Apprentices named in the Statement of Claire were moved from one phase of their training to another on June 1, 1976. Claim was filed under Rule 10 alleging that Claimants were changed from one shift to another and thus entitled to time and one-half for such change. Rule 10 reads as follows:





Carrier denied the claim on the basis that the Apprentices were follcwirg their schedule of Apprentice Training and did not move from one assigtnnent to another and accordingly were not entitled to time and one-half for change of shift.

 The Employer contend that Claimants Jordan and Wilson were changed from the first shift (7:00 AM to 3:00 F~`.7) to the second shift (3:00 FM to 11:00 W)1, while Claimants Stone, Luneau and Roe were changed frarz the second shift to the first. It is argued that such change was 3n violation of Pule 37 (i) which reads:

They further allege that the learning of all phases of the electrical craft can b e accomplished by maintaining Apprentices on the day shift rather than changing 5121.E t S.
 Form 1 Award No. 7951+
 Page 3 Docket No. 7661+
 2-MP-EW-179

 Carrier alleges that the movement from one shift to another is part of the assignment of an Apprentice, that in moving fran one location to another they are following their apprentice training schedule, and, further, that the trainee's are placed on a second shift in order to give them the widest possible experience on trouble shooting and maintenance work on diesel locomotives. Such training is but a continuation of their training schedule.

 This appears to be the first protest of this nature. Rule 10 was not shown to have been applied to the movements of Apprentices from one shift to another. It is apparent that no protest had been made when complainant Apprentices were moved from the first shift to the second shift or from the second shift to the first shift. There is a specific schedule established therefor. It is clear that the Carrier had acted in good faith when it believed that it was acting in consonance with Rule 37 (i) because it had the implicit, if not expressed, approval of the General Chairman.

 As to the proper application of Rule 37(i), the -Employes are technically correct here. It is clear that if there is to be a change from other than the first shirt such requires "the writ-Len" approval of the General Chairman. Carrier did not obtain that and -it should., However, the mere fact that there were reverse changes here from the second shiit to the first shift indicates that no protest was made when such apprentices went from the first shift to the second. We believe that, in such ci rctznstances the n.nployees had been acquiesing in changing them because they had expressed no disapproval and thus led Carrier to believe it had implied approval. Carrier is now placed on notice that when they are to move Apprentices from the first shift that it must have the required written approval. This Claim will. be disposed of on that basis.




                          By Order of Second Division


Attest: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

    By ~. h semarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant


    Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 13th day of June, 1979.