NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
(Supplemental )
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the Illinois Central Railroad Company that:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Prior to January 3, 1958, Mr. R. H. Harris had been regularly assigned to the position of Testman, with headquarters at Clinton, Illinois, and an assigned territory covering the Springfield Division. The duties of this position are the inspection, special adjustment and field testing of signal facilities.
On January 3, 1958, at 11:00 P. M., Mr. L. w. Steams, Signal Supervisor, called Testman Harris to assist the regular Signal Maintainer in correcting signal trouble at Toronto, Illinois. Testman Harris was subsequently released from duty at 2:30 A. M. on January 4, 1958. Mr. P. Pointer was the regular Signal Maintainer on January 3, 1958, on the territory that embraced Toronto, and his headquarters was Springfield, Illinois. On that date the Signal Maintainer on the territory to the north also had Springfield as his headquarters, and the Signal Maintainer on the territory to the south had his headquarters at Waggoner, Illinois.
As Testman Harris was required to perform work outside of his regular assignment, he claimed overtime pay on his daily report of labor for January 4, 1958. On January 8, 1958, Signal Supervisor Stearns wrote the following letter to Testman Harris:
In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for this claim and it should be denied.
All data in this submission have been presented to the Employes and made a part of the question in dispute.
OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant, Signal Testman, R. H. Harris, contends that he had been regularly assigned to the position of Testman, with headquarters at Clinton, Illinois, and an assigned territory covering the Springfield Division; that his duties, as defined by the agreement, are the inspection, special adjustment and field testing of signal facilities; that on January 3, 1958, at 11:00 P. M., the Signal Supervisor called Claimant to assist the regular Signal Maintainer in correcting signal trouble at Toronto, Illinois; that he was subsequently released from duty at 2:30 A. M. on January 4, 1958; that at the time he was called there were Signal Maintainers available at territory, north and south, immediately adjacent to the point he was assigned to; it is his further contention that they should have been called instead of Claimant as the work he was required to perform was that of a Signal Maintainer and work outside of his regular assignment as a Testman and he, consequently, claims overtime pay for the additional reason that he was not subject to call as he was a monthly rated employe.
Carrier urges, to the contrary, that Claimant Harris was called out to correct a signal failure at Toronto, Illinois, after it developed that the regular assigned Signal Maintainer could not correct the signal failure and contends that a Signal Testman may be utilized under those circumstances. Carrier further asserts that the Signal Maintainer was not released from service until after the trouble was corrected and he was compensated under the applicable rules of the Agreement for the service rendered. The Carrier maintains that the fact the Signal Maintainer could not correct the trouble conclusively demonstrates that the disputed work was of a nature that necessitated the service of a Testman.
This Board is of the conviction that Claimant has failed to establish that the work performed on the claimed date was not properly assigned to him as a Signal Testman under Article 1-Section 4 of the Agreement, and, as at the time the instant dispute arose he occupied a position that carried a monthly rate of pay for all service rendered, he is not entitled to the compensation requested. 11479-14 78