The following positions are hereby advertised for bids in accordance with Signal Department Employes Agreement.
Applications should be sent to the undersigned where they will be received up to 8:00. o'clock A. M. October 10, 1938.
In the event there are no qualified bids from men on Cedar Rapids Division roster, these positions will be assigned per first paragraph of Rule 56.
Applications from men not on Cedar Rapids Division roster should be made to Signal Engineer at Chicago.
This, clearly, is evidence that adjustment was made in Mr. Farmer's territory, both as to mileage to be maintained and apparatus to be looked after.
As a matter of fact, the work assigned to the position at West Branch is lighter than that assigned to the position at Iowa Falls.
OPINION OF BOARD: This dispute arose because of the different interpretations placed on Rule 68 by the General Committee representing the Signal Department employes and representatives of the management of The Chicago, Rock Island Pacific Railway Company.
The Committee contends that the "conditions under which an employe will be permitted to exercise seniority rights and position re-bulletined * * *" are represented in the changes that took place both as to (b) "change in limits of territory" and (c) "installation of additions of equipment or apparatus not previously assigned to position."
The Carrier contends that no major change in the status of the bulletined position held by Farmer was represented in the changes that took place and insists that "a major change," as contemplated by Rule 68, could arise under the following conditions: "Should the installation of a new, or materially changed, apparatus assigned to the territory cause the employe assigned to the territory, where apparatus installed, to be subject to disqualification on account of his unfamiliarity with technical involvements, we would then consider a major change had taken place within the meaning of Rule 68 (c)."
The Board is of the opinion that the limiting of Rule 68 to such interpretation as above quoted cannot be sustained because of its restriction of Paragraph (c) and its disregard of the provisions of paragraphs (a), (b), (d) and (e) of this rule.
The Board is also of the opinion that the Employes' Committee has placed too narrow an interpretation on paragraphs (b) and (c) of Rule 68 by contending that any minor changes under these two paragraphs would permit of the assigned employe's making a displacement and exercising his seniority rights under Rule 68; also, that an employe making a displacement under the 2003-9 17
provisions of Rule 68 would be privileged, while that matter is being handled with the Carrier, to designate some other position on which he would prefer to make his dispacement although the second position was brought under his seniority territory during the handling of his original request.
It is the Board's interpretation that a major change in any one of the paragraphs (a, b, c, d, and e) of Rule 68 shall be "conditions under which an employe will be permitted to exercise seniority rights" in making a displacement under that Rule.
This case will be remanded to the parties and the above interpretation will govern in the application of Rule 68 in the future.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving the parties to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon, and upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:
That the carrier and the employes involved in the dispute are respectively carrier and employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;
That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and
That this case is remanded to the parties and the interpretation of Rule 68 stated in the above opinion will govern in the future.