NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD SIGNALMEN
CENTRAL OF GEORGIA RAILWAY COMPANY
STATEMENT
OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the
Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the Central of Georgia Railway Company:
(a) That the Carrier violates the Signalmen's Agreement of
July 1 1950 Rules 6 (a), 6 (b), 37, 64, and any other applicable rules,
under Bulletin J-27-60 of September 9, 1960.
(b) That J. R. Estes, Jr., Traveling Signal Maintainer be paid
for all time lost account of work which has been assigned to him
being placed on three other junior employes. One of these junior
employes not coming under the classification of Traveling Signal
Maintainer. This time to begin as of September 17, 1960, and to continue until such time as this violation is corrected.
(c) That J. J. Andrews, hourly-rated Signal Maintainer with
headquarters at Columbus, Georgia, be paid the difference in his pay
as hourly-rated Signal Maintainer and the rate for the position of
Traveling Signal Maintainer beginning September 17, 1960, and to
continue until such time as this violation is corrected.
[Carrier's File No.: SIG 456]
EMPLOYES'
STATEMENT OF FACTS: The claims in this case arose
as a result of the Carrier improperly abolishing a position of Traveling Signal
Maintainer with headquarters at Columbus, Georgia, on September 16, 1960,
and improperly re-distributing the Traveling Signal Maintainer's territory
among junior employes after the job had been improperly abolished.
One of the Claimants in this dispute, Mr. J. R. Estes, Jr., is the Brotherhood's General Chairman on the Central of Georgia. He held a job as a Relay
Repairman prior to July 1, 1958, at which time his job was abolished. At that
time, he bid in and was awarded a position as Traveling Signal Maintainer at
Macon, Georgia.
Then, on August 12, 1958, the Carrier issued Bulletin No. J-9-58 in which
a position of Traveling Signal Maintainer with headquarters at Columbus.
Georgia, was advertised. See Brotherhood's Exhibit No. 1.
19551
11518-40
994
the burden of proof is upon the party making the claim, and where
competent proof is lacking a sustaining award is improper. * * *."
"AWARD
"Claim denied."
Third Division Award 6379
(Kelliher):
"The Petitioner has failed to sustain its burden of proof to show
a contract violation."
"AWARD
"Claim denied."
Third Division Award 6378 (Kelliher):
"Based upon an analysis of all the evidence, it must be found
that the petitioners have failed to sustain the burden of proof and,
therefore, claim is accordingly denied."
"AWARD
"Claim denied."
Third Division Award 5418
(Parker):
"*
* * Under our decisions (see e.g., Award No. 4011), the burden of establishing facts sufficient to require or permit the allowance of a claim is upon him who seeks its allowance and where that
burden is not met, a denial Award is required for failure of proof."
"AWARD
"Claim denied."
And there are many other Awards of the Board on this point, too numerous to mention.
In view of all the facts and circumstances shown by the Carrier in this
Ex Parts Submission, Carrier respectfully requests the Board to deny this
baseless claim in its entirety.
Carrier, not having yet seen the Employes' Ex Parts Submission, reserves
the right, after the Employes have set forth their position to the Board, to
present such additional evidence and argument as it deems necessary.
All facts submitted in support of Carrier's position in this case have
been presented orally or by correspondence to the duly authorized representative of the Employes, and made a part of this dispute.
(Exhibits not reproduced.)
OPINION OF BOARD: After carefully studying the record and the
argumentation presented for and in behalf of the parties, we do not find that
Carrier violated any rule in the effective Agreement.
11518-4i
99 5
We are of the belief:
That Carrier had the contractual right to abolish the position
held by Claimant Estes.
That the position of Claimant Andrews was not changed from that
of a "Signal Maintainer" to that of a "Traveling Signal Maintainer."
Consequently, the Claim must be denied in its entirety.
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
That the Agreement was not violated.
AWARD
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of THIRD DIVISION
ATTEST: S. H. Schulty
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 14th day of June 1963.