PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD SIGNA131EN OF AMERICA
CHICAGO, BURLINGTON AND QUINCY RAILROAD COMPANY

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen of America on the Chicago, Burlington .and Quincy Railroad Company that:




EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Prior to November 5, 1957, L. J. Stromer has been regularly assigned to the position of Signal Maintainer with headquarters at Baird Tower. V. F. Walter had been regularly assigned to the position of Signal Maintainer with headquarters at B Tower, Hump Yard, and L. J. Rimestad had been regularly assigned to the position of Leading Signal Maintainer with headquarters at Hall Tower. These three positions are within the Lincoln Terminal, Lincoln, Nebraska. Leading Signal 1VIaintainer Rimestad has jurisdiction over the other two Maintainers in the Lincoln Terminal, but he maintains his own assigned territory. Signal Maintainers Stromer and Walter maintain their respective assigned territories and submit their own periodical reports such as time rolls, requisitions for supplies, etc.


On November 5, 1957, about 7:45 P.M., Leading Signal Maintainer Rimestad was called by the Carrier to investigate signal trouble at Baird Tower, which is on the territory regularly assigned to Signal Maintainer Stromer. Inasmuch as this call was in violation of Agreement Rules 4 and 18, Signal Maintainer Stromer submitted Form 2707-Revised (Statement of Overtime Worked), for two hours and forty minutes at the punitive rate. A similar incident occurred on November 8, 1957, and Signal Maintainer Stromer again submitted Form 2707-Revised, for one hour at the punitive rate. On November .9, 1957, a similar incident again occurred, this time on the territory regularly



11606-23 323

OPINION OF BOARD: Petitioner asserts that Rule 18 (entitled "Subject to Call") of the effective Agreement was violated when on claim dates the Leading Signal Maintainer was called and used to perform service on what is alleged to have been the assigned territories of these Claimants.







Claimants were not registered absent; hence, according to Petitioner, should have been called to perform the service.


Rule 4 is also cited by Petitioner but has no application here. It merely describes the classifications of "Leading Signal Maintainer" or "Leading Signalman" and places a limit (5) on the number of employes the occupant of the position is to supervise.


What the Board does consider significant and controlling here is that in 1950 these parties agreed that the senior man on Lincoln Terminal would answer all calls; that in 1953 the assigned territories of both Claimants and of the Leading Signal Maintainer encompassed all of Lincoln Terminal; that the Leading Signal Maintainer was senior to these Claimants at the time of the call; and that he had been the regular assignee in all of the territory for many years, during which period he had been called to perform emergency service thereon from time to time under Rule 18.


In view of the foregoing, the Board finds that neither past practice nor the language of Rule 18 supports this claim. It will, therefore, be denied.


FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, 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;


That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and













Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 12th day of July, 1963.