NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
(Supplemental)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the Lehigh Valley Railroad Company that:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: This dispute involves a separation of signal work as indicated by the classification rules of the current Signalmen's Agreement. As shown by the Statement of Claim, the claimants are Messrs. Philip Roccaro, Andrew Beatty, and Roy Azzalina. On the dates involved, Messrs. Roccaro and Azzalina were on furlough due to force reductions, and Mr. Beatty, who had worked as a Signalman, was working as a Signal Maintainer's Helper at South Plainfield, New Jersey, also because of force reductions.
On various dates from April 9 to May 1, 1959, inclusive, the Carrier required signal maintenance employes to suspend work on their maintenance assignments and perform signal construction work of installing electric switch lamps and battery boxes at yard switches at various points where no electric switch lamps or battery boxes previously existed. On June 5, 1959, Mr. C. T. Heitzman, Local Chairman, presented the following claim to Mr. W. J. Varner, Signal Construction Engineer:
As pointed out, a reading of Article I-the classification article of the various jobs covered-does not in any way touch on the question of the prohibition of any of the particular classified jobs performing construction work or maintenance work. In other words, it is the contention of this Carrier that if it is signal work, any of the classified jobs may perform the work provided the prevailing wage is paid to the one performing the work. To be more specific, if one of a lower class performs work of a higher class he is entitled to the higher rate of pay and vice versa-that is, one with the higher rate doing the lower rated work receives the higher rate of pay. (Article II, Section 20, Schedule Agreement.)
In conclusion, Carrier urges that under the current agreement it was within its rights in having the work performed as alleged. The Employes have not on the property assumed the burden of proof which is rightfully theirs, and it is contended that they cannot assume the burden before this Division.
OPINION OF BOARD: Neither the agreement nor other evidence of record distinguish between work which may be assigned to maintainers and construction forces. Being thus without a guide, the Board finds that the claim must 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