STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the Kansas City Terminal Railway Company that:
(a) The Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement, as amended, especially Rule 12 (e), when it failed and/or refused to assign the senior available employe to a signal maintenance position at Tower No. 4 from 3:00 P. M. until 11:00 P. M. on December 29, 1957, during the absence of the regular assignee.
(b) The Carrier now compensate Leading Signal Maintainer L. C. Eckenroed for S hours at his pro rata rate of pay for December 29, 1957. [Carrier's file SG-197
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Mr. L. C. Eckenroed had been regularly assigned to a position of Leading Maintainer, which includes the first trick (7 A. M. to 3 P. M.) at Tower No. 3 on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday. He protects Tower Nos. 3, 4 and 14, on Saturday and Sunday as those are the regular rest days for the first trick Maintainers at Tower Nos. 4 and 14 and no relief is provided. His assigned rest days are Monday and Tuesday.
Mr. E. L. Ash had been regularly assigned to a position of Signal Maintainer for the first trick at Tower No. 4 Monday thru Friday, with Saturday and Sunday as rest days.
On Sunday, September 29, 1957, Mr. L. C. Eckenroed worked his regular assignment. On that date the regular assignee of the second trick (3 P. M. to 11 P. M.) signal maintenance position at Tower No. 4 was absent and Mr. Eckenroed was used to fill that casual vacancy, which immediately followed his regular tour of duty.
On Sunday, December 29, 1957, Mr. L. C. Eckenroed worked his regular assignment. On that date the regular assignee of the second trick signal maintenance position at Tower No. 4 was absent, but instead of assigning
Briefly summarizing, Claimant Eckenroed was not used to fill the vacancy at Tower No. 4 as a Signal Maintainer on Sunday, December 29, 1957, from 3:00 P. M. to 11:00 P. M. for the following reason:
The Carrier firmly believes that Mr. M=ay's vacancy was properly filled by the senior man in the same class as the vacancy occurred and respectfully request your Board to deny instant claim for lack of schedule rule support.
All of the facts and information contained in this ex parte submission have been discussed with employe representatives during the handling on the property of this particular claim.
OPINION OF BOARD: The claim is based on the Carrier's alleged failure to assign the Claimant, a leading signal maintainer or the first trick, to fill a temporary vacancy of signal maintainer on the second trick, during the absence of the regular holder of the position. Rule 12 (e) reads:
It becomes necessary to define the word class as used in 12 (e) above. Article 1 of the agreement under the heading Classification (a) defines a Leading Signal Maintainer, as a Signal Maintainer who supervises other employes. Sections (b), (c), and (d) describe in turn Signal Maintainer, Assistant Signal Maintainer, and Signal Maintainer Helper. Thus the agreement itself provides the classification of these employes.
The agreement further makes reference to classes in Rule 24 (b), in regard to seniority, establishing Seniority Classes A, B, and C. It is clear however that seniority of employes exists within the seniority classes thus established, and reference to a class in Rule 12 (e) does not refer to Seniority Classes A, B, and C of Rule 24 (b). Thus the Claimant who was a Leading Signal Maintainer, was in the Leading Signal Maintainer's Class, and not in the class of Signal Maintainers. He should not have been called to perform the overtime on the second shift in a position of Signal Maintainer, any more than Signal Maintainer Helper should have been called, as he was in a different class.
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