STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen of America on the Illinois Central Railroad Company that:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Claimant E. E. Allen was regularly assigned to position of Assistant Signalman on the St. Louis Division. He was on furlough on the dates involved in this claim, on account of a force reduction.
Traveling Maintainer I. Cavaness was awarded position of Traveling Maintainer on September 22, 1941. Copy of Bulletin No. 4, File 8, dated August 25, 1941, advertising this position for bid, is shown as Brotherhood's Exhibit No. 1. Copy of Bulletin No. 4-A, File 8, dated September 22, 1941, assigning 1. Cavaness to position of Traveling Maintainer, is shown as Brotherhood's Exhibit No. 2.
During the period May 9 through May 13, 1955, I. Cavaness was assigned to assist the Signal Maintainer with headquarters at Metropolis, Illinois, during a rail laying programn on that territory.
Claimant E. E. Allen was available to return to service but was not recalled, thereby being deprived of compensation that rightfully accrued to him by virtue of his seniority and his rights as a furloughed employe.
On May 16, 1955, Local Chairman E. Waddington filed a claim with Division Engineer C. 1. VanArsdalen, wh'vch was denied by the Division Engineer under date of May 27, 1955.
Traveling Maintainer Cavaness is paid a monthly rate of pay in accordance with Section 72 of the agreement, which reads in part:
Carrier's payroll records show that Cavaness was paid eight hours at pro rata rate on May 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13, and eight hours at pro rata rate on May 14 identified as "Time paid for not worked," in accordance with Section 72. As previously stated in Carrier's Statement of Facts, during the period covered by the claim Cavaness spent only 22 hours doing work which the Employes allege belonged to the classification of Assistant Signalman.
All data in this submission have been presented in substance to the Employes and made a part of the question in dispute.
OPINION OF THE BOARD: The Organization in this case is claiming that an Assistant Signal Maintainer should be reimbursed for work allegedly performed in violation of the contract by a Traveling Maintainer. Article 1, Section 5 of the Agreement defines as Assistant Signalman, Assistant Signal Maintainer, as "An employe in training for a position of Signalman or Signal Maintainer, working with and under the direction of a signalman or Signal Maintainer, * * *".
The difficulty with the position of the Organization is that we are unable to determine from the record what work properly accrues to an assistant. It is undisputed in the record that the work involved was paid for at the applicable Traveling Maintainer's rate.
The record is also silent concerning any need of the Carrier to train another Assistant Signalman so that he would be able to handle the work of a Signalman. In light of the above the claim is found to be without merit.
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 this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934; 10312-14 71