man agreed that in order to efficiently fulfill the responsibilities of his position an employe subject to call under Rule 10 should be required to reside at a location from which he would be able to report at his home station tool house in a reasonable time, and stated that in his opinion such a location would be one from which the employe would be able to report at his tool house within the 30 minutes for which he would be compensated under Rule 8 (c). This suggestion was reasonable, and the Superintendent of Communications and Signals was willing to consent to it as a matter of cooperation, but the General Chairman, for the completely baseless reasons stated in his letter of September 12, 1950 (Item No. 8, Carrier's Statements of Facts), withdrew it.

4. The right of the Railway to require employes subject to call to live at their home stations having been recognized in Rule 10 of the applicable agreement, that requirement may be modified under the Railway Labor Act only through the process of negotiation. In local handling the General Chairman suggested a modification that would reasonably meet the requirements of the service. The Railway was willing to consent to it but the Employes withdrew, and now ask the Board to abrogate Rule 10 altogether by an award which would permit Maintainers and their Helpers, regardless of the responsibilities of their positions and the consequences to the Railway's operation, to live where they choose whether or not it is within reasonable calling distance of stations, thereby obtaining a condition they could not gain through negotiation. This Board is not empowered by the Railway Labor Act to do what the Employes ask, or as stated by the Third Division in its Opinion in Award 2202:

11. . . For us to hold otherwise would be to place the Division in the position of making agreements for the parties a matter clearly outside of our jurisdiction."

For the reasons stated the Employes' claim should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction or denied for lack of merit.

All of the matters cited and relied upon by the Carrier insofar as they relate to the case as handled on appeal on the property have been discussed with the employes.

(Exhibits not reproduced.)

OPINION OF BOARD: Dispute here concerns charge by the Organization that Carrier violated the currently effective agreement in unilaterally and arbitrarily changing existing practices by placing the following provision in all bulletins concerning positions:

"The successful applicant will be required to reside in the town designated as the home station."

The Organization asserts that Rules 8 (c), 10 and 40 are or will be placed in jeopardy if this requirement is maintained or continued.

Rule 8 (c)-Calls-provides that employes called without prior notice will be allowed not more than thirty minutes between the time called and the time required to report at a specified place.

Rule 10-Subject to Call-requires all employes subject to call to report to the wire chief or chief dispatcher when they will be absent and not available.

Rule 40-Telephones-prescribes conditions under which the Carrier or the individual employe will bear the expense of a telephone.

It is contended that the institution of the residence requirement had never, prior to the present instance, been placed in a bulletin and that the past practice of the Carrier in permitting employes to live away from their home station is now controlling and binding. It is asserted that the protection and benefits of the seniority will be nullified if this practice is changed or discontinued.

The Respondent takes the position that Rule 11 which reads as follows:

"Employes will be assigned a designated headquarters which will be considered their home station."

permits the designation of headquarters which is likewise the home station of the employes working therefrom and that Rule 10 contractually requires employes be readily available for call outside of their regular assigned hours.

It is further asserted that Rule 18 of the Rules and Instructions for the Government of Communications and Signals Department Employes which in pertinent part reads:

"All employes must . . . reside wherever required . . .

Rule 11 of the agreement, while having the effect of designating the headquarters and home station of employes, does not specifically require an employe to reside therein. The authority of the Carrier to impose this restriction then, must of necessity stem from its inherent prerogatives which have not been abridged or contracted away by the terms of the effective agreement.

The Carrier unquestionably has the right to promulgate and enforce any rule or requirement that does not nullify or conflict with a rule of the negotiated agreement.

Rule 18 of the above mentioned Rules and Instructions does not nullify or conflict therewith. This operating rule (Rule 18) is clear and without ambiguity.

An individual thus accepts employment subject to the operating rules of the Employer.

The Organization's contention that the past practice of the Respondent in not requiring an employe to reside at his home station has, because of its duration, achieved the status and standing of a rule, is in this particular instance without merit.

All employes knew of its existence. The fact that it has in the past been dormant does not in itself render said operating rule presently ineffective. The failure of the Company to bring the rule into play apparently inured to the benefit of the employes.

There is no valid ground for objection if Operating Rule 18 is interpreted and applied in a manner that would require an employe to reside in a locality that would enable him to report within thirty minutes after being called, as proposed by the Respondent.

While a different rule and another carrier was involved in Award 3992 the following quoted portion of the opinion therein is equally relevant here:

" . It is true that the Agreement does not specifically require a signal maintainer to live at or near his headquarters. We think that the assignment of a headquarters inferentially requires it. But whether it does or not, the contract being silent on the subject, it is the province of management to require it, . . .

. . The operation of the railroad being the function of management, and there being no Agreement provision limiting its action with respect thereto, its decision that signal maintainers must live at or in proximity to assigned headquarters is controlling."

For the stated reasons the claim is without merit.

AWARD