STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on The Virginian Railway Company that:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: On March 13, 1956, Mr. T. W. Williams was assigned to a Signalman position in the signal shop at Princeton, West Virginia. The position had been created because of extra work due to the installation of the new Centralized Traffic Control system between Princeton and Elmore. While he was on the Signalman position in the signal shop, Mr. Williams worked on the wiring of CTC equipment. Effective at the close of the work day, June 27, 1958, the Carrier abolished that position and Mr. Williams returned to a position in a signal gang.
On various dates after Mr. Williams' signalman position in the Princeton Signal Shop was abolished, the Carrier placed Assistant Maintainer R. C. Jones in the signal shop and allowed him to perform Signalman's work of the type that previously had been performed by Signalman Williams, such as wiring cases, switch machines and the relay boards for the CTC machine. On those dates Mr. Jones was arbitrarily removed from his regular assignment, which was working with the Princeton Signal Maintainer.
On August 28, 29, and September 2, 5 and 15, 1958, Mr. T. W. Williams submitted Forms 605 Rev.-3-23-51 ("Telegraph & Signal Department Daily Work Report to Supt. Telegraph & Signals") on which he claimed pay for eight (8) hours each day at the pro rata Signalman's rate of pay ($2.456) on the basis that Assistant Maintainer Jones was allowed to perform Signalman's work.
Since this claim is contrary to the provisions of Rule 206 and Supplement No. 9, it should be denied.
OPINION OF BOARD: The position of Signalman in the signal shop was abolished as of June 27, 1958. Claimant had held the position since March 13, 1956, and upon its abolishment he returned to a signal gang job. On the dates involved, Carrier placed an Assistant Maintainer in the shop who assisted in the performance of work similar to that once done by Claimant; i.e., wiring cases, switch machines, and relay boards for a CTC machine.
Claim is based on the premise that the Assistant Maintainer performed work that previously had been assigned to a Signalman in violation of Rule 703, which reads:
Carrier's defense is predicated upon Paragraphs 9 and 10 of Supplement No. 9 of the Agreement. They provide:
Carrier alleges that an agreement was made with the General Chairman of the Organization whereby work here performed by the Assistant Maintainer was in accordance with the training program contemplated by the aforesaid provisions of Supplement No. 9. There is no refutation or denial of Carrier's allegation in the record before the Board. We have no alternative, therefore, other than to find that the work performed by the Assistant Maintainer was done in accordance with an agreed-upon procedure to provide trainees with the necessary experience to qualify for higher-rated jobs, as intended by Supplement No. 9.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving the parties to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon, and 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 12241-8 512