STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company that:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Mr. Virgil Bellomy is regularly assigned to the Signal Helper position with headquarters at Dent, Ky. Mr. Bellomy is assigned to work with Signal Maintainer M. M. Kelley on the Dent, Ky., signal maintenance territory.
On the night of December 15, 1957, Signal Maintainer Kelley was called account signal trouble on his assigned signal maintenance territory. Signal Maintainer Kelley responded and answered the call by himself and did not call his regular assigned Signal Helper, Mr. Bellomy. Mr. Kelley answered the call about 1:00 A. M. and, upon investigating the cause of the signal failure, found a broken rail. Mr. Kelley called the section forces to repair the broken rail and loaded his signal tools on the section motor car and rode with the section forces to the scene of the broken rail and bonded the rail with signal bond wires after the section forces replaced the rail. After the rail was replaced and Mr. Kelley had restored the signal circuits to proper operation, he again loaded his signal tools on the section forces motor car and returned to his headquarters with the section forces.
Inasmuch as Mr. Kelley did not call and use his regularly assigned Signal Helper, Mr. Bellomy, for the overtime work on December 15, 1957, a claim was filed in Mr. Bellomy's behalf by Local Chairman E. E. Gaines with Mr. J. F. Wiseman, Signal Supervisor, under date of January 15, 1958, as follows:
ferred to letter of understanding to permit signal maintainers to decide whether they needed their helpers' assistance when called outside their regular working hours.
In the instant case, as evidenced by Maintainer Kelley's letter of February 14, 1958, supra, he did not consider he needed assistance when called out on the date here involved.
Carrier submits, in view of the circumstances involved, the January 3, 1949 letter of understanding and the subsequent practice, there is no basis for the employes' claim and same should be denied.
All matters referred to herein have been presented, in substance, by the carrier to representatives of the employes either in conference or correspondence.
OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant, Signal Helper Virgil Bellomy, is assigned to work with Signal Maintainer Kelley on the Dent, Kentucky, signal maintainer territory. The facts are not in dispute. Kelley when investigating the cause of a signal failure found a broken rail. He called the section forces to repair the broken rail and loaded his signal tools on the section motor car and rode with the section forces to the scene of the broken rail where he bonded the rail with signal bond wires after the section forces replaced the rail.
It is the contention of the Claimant that when the section men hauled the Signal Maintainer and his tools, the section men were taking the place of the Signal Helper who was not marked off call and under Rule 18(a) should have been called to work on this assigned territory.
"(a) Employes assigned to or filling maintenance positions will notify the management where they may ordinarily be called. If on specific occasions they desire to be off call, they will so advise the person designated for the purpose. Unless registered off call, they will be considered as available and will be called for service to be performed on their assigned territory and will respond as promptly as possible when called."
Carrier concedes that the facts are as herein stated but contends that under the provisions of a Supplement to the Agreement, dated January 3, 1949, there was no obligation under these circumstances to call the Signal Helper. The Letter of Understanding, or so much of it as is pertinent to this cause, is, as follows:
"It is agreed that signal maintainers when called outside regular working hours to clear signal trouble or do other emergency work will use their regularly assigned helpers or assistants in the event that their help is needed. (Emphasis ours.) 11487-1a 195
There is nothing in Rule 18(4) which requires that a helper be called everytime his maintainer is called for signal work, as is explained in the Supplement to the Agreement. Though the "letter of understanding" does not give any Signal Maintainer the right to use any employes other than his regularly assigned Helper, or those coming within the Signalmen's Agreement, to assist in case of trouble it does leave to the discretion of the Maintainer the right to determine whether or not he needs assistance.
The Maintainer riding a short distance on the section men's motor car for convenience, instead of using his own car or the company truck, obviously does not evidence the existence of "work" or "service" which the helper stood to be called for as Claimant alleges. There was no Signalmen's work performed by employes not covered by their Agreement and, according to the Maintainer's 11487-14 196