Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTi~TT11T BOARD Award ivo. 8092
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 7855
 2-C R-CM-' 79



Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)

Dispute: Claim of Employes:






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

 The carrier or carriers and the en bloye or employes involved in this dispute are respectivelw carrier and ernploye 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 issue here is whether employes represented by the Organization I-rho are assigned to work in the Carrier's l;epair acil.ity at Reading, Fr= are entitled to a twenty minute paid lunch period. prior to April 1, 1976, the
 Form 1 Award No. 8092
 Page 2 Docket No. 7855
 2-CR-CM-'79

 former Reading Railroad operated a Repair Facility which contained two separate facilities, the Locomotive Shops and the Car Shops. The Locomotive Shops were referred to as engine shops or enginehouse territories and employees who worked therein worked on a three shift basis and were accorded a twenty minute paid lunch period. The Car Shops were composed of the Wheel Shop, the Passenger Car Repair Shop, located in one building and the Freight Car Repair Shop which s-ras located in another building. These Shops operated on less than a three shift operation and the employes there received a thirty minute unpaid lunch period.

 On April 1, 1976, the aforesaid facilities were taken over by Conrail, the Carrier here, and were named ConRail Repair Facility. The Reading Railroad became tart of the Consolidated Rail Corporation and the two maintenance areas came under the supervision of one General Superintendent. The Locomotive or Enginehouse area continued to operate on a three shift basis. The Car Shop area, or shops, which operated on a one or two shift basis, continued to so operate_ On April 1, 1976, however, the Conrail General Superintendent issued an order changing the meal period arrangements so that the employes working irz the Car Shops received a twenty minute paid meal period rather than the thin''Llr minute non-paid meal period previously in effect.

 On October 26, 1976, the Carrier notified the General Chairman of the Organization that the lunch period which had been placed in effect on April 1, eras not in accordance with the provisions of the Schedule Agreements and after consultation with the Organization, the Carrier notified the Organization and posted a notice dated January 17, 1977, on appropriate bulletin boards, stating what it claized was the erroneously allowed paid lunch period would be terminated effective January 24, 1977, and after further discussion with the Organization the return to the unpaid lunch period became effective February 1, 1977.

 The applicable Schedule Rules are Rules 2, 3 and 4 of the Schedule Agreement, which read as follows:






Form 1 Award No. 8092
 Page 3 Docket No. 7855
 2-C R-CRZ-' 79
 "The spread of each shift shall consist of eight consecutive
 hours, excluding the lunch period, the lenggth of which shall
 b e : ub j ect to mutual agreement and shall not b e paid for."
 "Rule 4 - Three Shifts
 At the main shops and engine houses where three shifts are ,
 employed, the starting time of the first shift shall be
 governed by Rule 2, and the starting tine for each following
 shift shall. be regulated accordingly. The spread of each
 shift shall. consist of eight consecutive hours, including
 an allowance of twen';y minutes for lunch with pay within
 the limits of the fi:fh hour."

 This dispute is substantially identical with the dispute that was submitted to this Division by -Lhe Electrical Z;Torkers. (See Award ITO. 7947). The facts are substantially identical. Here, as in that case, the Organization ar.ptes that the twenty minute paid lunch period was proper because the activities of the employes now ccme under the head of the ConRwil Repair Facility with a sin -l a General Superintendent. The organization also ar~-,aes that the Car Shop: and the Locomotive Shops have been co-:rinE;;led in so:2e fashion and claa.:n that thec,; a:^otive Shop -ras discontinued. The Carrier denies that the former operations are still not being performed by -the employes and denies that -'L-.he~ lfo~;(';-; tiv a and Freight and Passenger Car Repair operations are not performed as they i,;ere previously performed. The Organisation also argues that because soire employes wino work on a third trick operztion receive a twenty minute paid meal period and part of the facility, therefore, receives a Paid lunch period, all employees who are employed at the facility must receive the paid lunch period. In effect, the organization argues that if one section of a Shop works on a three trick basis and therefore receives a twenty minute paid lunch period, those who work in another section of the Shop on a one or two trick basis must receive a paid lunch period.

 The Board takes cognizance of the findings of this Division in Award No. 7947 that the Organization did not have a solid basis for its claim and is of the saz:ie view. The crucial question is whether there has been a charge in working schedules from a one or two shirt arrangenent to a three shift arrangement, and as to the en ployes here involved no such showing has been made. The Organization misreads Rule 4- in its contention that where the Carrier maintains a third trick operation within a part of the Shop facility, Rule 4 applies to all eziployes regardless of the number of tricks in the operations in which the ezrplo:les perform their function.

 As this Board pointed out, the Organization's claim that the changes of April 1, 1976 and the pronouncement of the General Superintendent created a single area and thus siade the provisions of Rule 4 applicable to all employees is not tenable. As Referee IJarx pointed, out, the change by the General Superintendent of April 1, 1976, was not undertaken as a requirement under the Agreeme;zt between the parties or by joint consultation
 Form l Page 4

 Award No. 8092
 Docket No. 7855 2-CR-CM-'79.

 and agreement between representatives of the Carrier and the organization empowered to make such changes. The Board held that even where a change in practice was instigated by a Supervisor, under the circumstances where the change was in effect approxhnately ten months, that change cannot defeat the clear language of the Agreement.

 We follow the ruling in Award No. 7947 of this Division that, "The acquisition of the Reading Railroad by a new o;mner and the installation of a common supervisory official over several functions does not disturb the degree of pre-existing benefit entitlements to the affected ersployes. Nor are the applicable Rules modified in their meaning and applicability by the unilateral and temporary decision of a Carrier official."

 A. W A R D

 Claim denied.

 Attest; Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUST2,=TT BOARD

By Order of Second Division


By "s,
 ~Oteznarie Brasch - Ad..~;.ni:;trative Assistant

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois., this 27th day of September,. 1979.