ATLANTA AND WEST POINT RAILROAD-THE WESTERN
RAILWAY OF ALABAMA AND GEORGIA RAILROAD
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen of America on the Atlanta and West Point Railroad Company-The Western Railway of Alabama and Georgia Railroad in behalf of:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Claimant R. L. Bateman was regularly assigned as Signal Maintainer on Section 4, with headquarters at Madison, Georgia.
Under date of September 12, 1955, Bulletin No. 45 was issued by Supervisor TT&S, C. S. Coggins, designating that headquarters of Section 4 was changed from Madison, Georgia, to Rutledge, Georgia.
Under date of September 30, 1955, Bulletin No. 50, issued by Supervisor TT&S, C. S. Coggins, and Supervisor TT&S, R. C. Neville, advised all concerned that Signal Maintainer G. D. Jackson had exercised his seniority rights under the existing agreement and had displaced Signal Maintainer R. L. Bateman, Section 4, Rutledge, Georgia, effective October 3, 1955.
Under date of October 3, 1955, Bulletin No. 51, issued by Supervisor, TT&S, C. S. Coggins, and Supervisor TT&S, R. C. Neville, advised all concerned that Signal Maintainer R. L. Bateman had exercised his seniority rights under the existing agreement and had displaced Signal Maintainer P. S. Daughtry, Section Signal Shop, Atlanta, Georgia, effective October 3, 1955.
On October 17, 1955, the following letter was directed to Signal Maintainer R. L. Bateman:
disqualify him, although they agreed that he would have to be trained for the job. Being in same classification and his taking the job not being a promotion, it was not incumbent on carrier to train claimant or to assign men to assist him, as he was supposed to be qualified to do the work. Carrier could not he expected to have a signal supervisor sit with him and do the work, as he has other duties to perform. Neither can carrier sit idly by and permit a man to remain on a job and botch it up without taking action.
Petitioner may also take the position that claimant was disciplined without an investigaion. Such was not the case, as he was not disciplined in any manner.
The claim is utterly without merit and for reasons stated above, we request that it be denied.
OPINION OF BOARD: The record before us reveals that this is not a discipline case, and the Discipline Rule, Article 7 of the effective Agreement is not applicable here. Neither does the record disclose that claimant was improperly removed from the position in the Signal Shop which he obtained through exercise of displacement rights and upon which he was permitted to remain for eleven days.
Since there was no position on which Claimant could place himself by virtue of his seniority during the period October 17 through October 31, 1966, the claim cannot be sustained.
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 Employe involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employe 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