NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
(Supplemental)
Raymond E. MCGYadi, Referee
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD SIGNALMEN OF AMERICA
ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
Claim of the General Committee of the
Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen of America on the Illinois Central Railroad Company that:
(a) The Carrier violated Article 8, Section 90, and other provisions of the Signalmen's Agreement when it arbitrarily demoted
Signalman J. H. Lougeay to position of Assistant Signalman after
he had been properly awarded the Signalman's position and qualified on the position in accordance with the provisions of the agreement.
(b) The Carrier now be required to compensate J. H. Lougeay
the difference in Assistant Signalman's pro rata rate of pay and the
pro rata rate of pay as Signalman, which is sixteen cents per hour,
and all overtime that has occurred on the position which he would
have received had he not been arbitrarily removed from the position,
at overtime rate of pay from January 25, 1957, until such time as lie
is properly restored to the Signalman's position, with all seniority
and rights restored and unimpaired. (Carrier's File No. 135-703-68,
Case No. 33 Sig., 135-322, 135-703-68 Spl., Case No. 29 Sig., 135-703-68
Spl., Case No. 34 Sig.)
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On October 26, 1956, the Carrier issued Bulletin No. 6 to employes of its Signal Department on the St.
Louis Division advertising for bids a permanent Signalman position at East
St. Louis Hump. The claimant. J. H. Lougeay, having completed eight periods
of 130 eight-hour days of service as an Assistant Signalman and/or Assistant
Signal Maintainer, was required by the agreement to bid for and offer to
promote himself on the bulletined position or forfeit all seniority and rights
and be demoted to the Signal Helper's Class, Class 6, never to be promoted
above that class again.
Claimant Lougeay submitted bid for the Signalman position advertised by
Bulletin No. 6 and being the senior bidder for the position was awarded and
assigned to the position by Bulletin No. 6-A, dated November 7, 1956, and
[1217
10855-19
139
All data in this submission have been presented to the Employes and made
a part of the question in dispute.
OPINION OF BOARD:
The original claim as set forth by the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen of America, reads as follows:
"(a) The Carrier violated Article 8, Section 90 and other provisions of the Signalmen's Agreement when it arbitrarily demoted
Signalman J. H. Lougeay to position of Assistant Signalman after
he had been properly awarded the Signalman's position and qualified
on the position in accordance with the provisions of the agreement.
"(b) The Carrier now be required to compensate J. H. Lougeay
the difference in Assistant Signalman's pro rata rate of pay and the
pro rata rate of pay as Signalman, which is sixteen cents per hour,
and all time that has occurred on the position which he would have
received had he not been arbitrarily removed from the position, at
overtime rate of pay from January 25, 1957, until such time as he is
properly restored to the Signalman's position, with all seniority and
rights restored and unimpaired." (Emphasis ours.)
In the record appears the following statement in the Organization's ex
parts submission:
"The claim of seniority and rights to the Signalman position is
now before this Board in our NRAB-629-I.C. This claim only embraces
the rate of pay and overtime accruing on the
Signalman position
which the claimant was demoted from In violation of the agreement."
(Emphasis ours.)
Case NRAB-629-I.C. above referred to, has been filed as a claim before
the National Railroad Adjustment Board Third Division Supplemental Docket
Number SG-10233. The parties to this dispute are the Brotherhood of Railroad
Signalmen of America and the Illinois Central Railroad Company, the same
as the parties to the dispute under consideration. The claim filed in that case
arises out of the same set of facts as the case which is before us at this time.
The claim in that case reads as follows:
"(a) The Carrier violated Article 5, Section 66, and other provisions of the Signalmen's Agreement when it failed and/or refused
to demote Assistant Signalmen H. E. Williams, H. E. Johnson, D. R.
Forby, W. F. Lindsey, and C. E. Heern to Signal Helpers when they
refused promotion to Signalman position issued in Bulletin No. 6,
dated October 26, 1956, after each had completed eight periods of
130 eight-hour days of service as Assistant Signalmen, as provided
in Article 3, Section 35, of the agreement.
"(b) The Carrier further violated the Signalmen's Agreement
on December 17, 1956, when following a formal investigation held
December 7, 1956, it demoted only the senior Assistant Signalman
cited above, who was H. E, Williams, to Signal Helper and permitted
the remaining Assistants to work and hold seniority in the Assistant's Class.
"(c) The Carrier further violated the Signalmen's Agreement
on or about January 25, 1957, when after having demoted H. E.
Williams to Signal Helper on December 17, 1956, for declining promotion, it arbitrarily appointed him to the Signalman's position awarded
to J. H. Lougeay by Bulletin No. 6-A dated November 7, 1956, and
16855-20
140
demoted J. H. Lougeay to Assistant Signalman position the same
date, causing him to forfeit all seniority he had accumulated in the
Signalman's class and reducing his rate of pay to Assistant Signalman. Such action by the Carrier violated Article 8, Section 90. of the
Signalmen's Agreement.
"(d) The Carrier now be required to demote the employes cited
in part (a) of this claim to Signal Helpers as provided in Article 5,
Section 66, of the agreement and
return J. H. Lougeay to the position of Signalman at East St. Louis Hump, with all seniority and
rights restored and unimpaired." (Emphasis ours.)
Award No. 10354 in that case reads in part as follows:
"That hearing was waived and under date of January 31, 1962,
the parties jointly addressed a formal communication to the Secretary of the Third Division requesting withdrawal of this case, which
request is hereby granted."
It is necessary to determine whether or not the Claimant has a right to
be restored to the signalman position with all seniority and rights restored
and unimpaired, before this Board can determine whether he should be compensated. A determination of this issue will affect the rights of others on
the seniority rosters. We think that this Board cannot consider part of this
claim in one case and another basic part of the claim in another case. The
Claimant has in effect withdrawn from the consideration of the Board in this
case this basic issue as to whether or not the Claimant has a right to be
restored to the signalman position with all seniority and rights in connection
with this position, and it is impossible to reach a conclusion on that part of
the claim which the Claimant is now asking the Board to decide without
reaching a conclusion as to this basic issue.
This claim is therefore referred back to the property for further conferences so that this claim may be presented and adjudicated in into and not
in part.
FINDINGS:
The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole
record and all the evidence, finds and holds:
That the parties waived oral hearing;
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;
That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the
dispute involved herein; and
AWARD
Claim remanded.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of THIRD DIVISION
ATTEST: S. H. Schulty
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 19th day of October 1962.