STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the Hudson and Manhattan Railroad Company that:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT Oh' FACTS: During 1957, or early in 1958, the Carrier's signal forces installed a recording voltmeter in the Hudson Terminal signal tower relay room, to be used in detecting grounds on the A. C. Signal Mains. Just prior to the meter being placed in service, the 4 P. M.to-midnight Signal Foreman instructed the 4 P. M.-to-midnight Signal Repairman what his duties and responsibilities were in the maintenance and operation of this meter, and the 4 P. M.-to-midnight Signal Repairman was the only repairman so instructed.
The 4 P. M.-to-midnight Signal Repairman at Hudson Terminal performed the work in connection with the meter each day, Monday through Friday. When he reported off duty at midnight the meter would not be changed until the following Monday just after 4 P. M. However, on October 5, 1958, the A. M. Signal Foreman removed and replaced the recording chart from the recording voltmeter located in the Hudson Terminal relay room at a time when there was no Signal Repairman present. On October 28, 1958, Mr. James J. Reese, Signal Repairman, presented the following claim to Mr. A. D. Moore, Superintendent Signal System and Way:
OPINION OF BOARD: The parties are in agreement that the Claimant was regularly assigned to the 4:00 P. M. to midnight shift at Hudson Terminal, Monday through Friday. One of his responsibilities consisted of removing and replacing the chart from the recording voltmeter located in the Hudson Terminal relay room and that the job is regularly performed once each day during the Claimant's tour of duty. Replacing of the chart and winding the clock is not done on the days the Claimant is off which take place every Saturday and Sunday.
On Sunday, October 5, 1958, the Signal Foreman removed and replaced the chart on the recording voltmeter in the Hudson Terminal Relay Room when there was no signal repairman present.
Petitioner takes the position that when the Signal Foreman performed work regularly assigned to the Claimant, this constituted a violation of the Agreement and gave rise to the instant claim.
Carrier states that the Foreman (who, incidentally is a member of the Organization and is covered by the Agreement) acted as he did because he was confronted with a situation requiring special investigation after he had observed a ground in the signal system; further, that having observed a ground in the system, his failure to take the action he did with trains operating every few minutes might have been perilous; also the record contains the opinion of the General Superintendent that the claim is trivial.
Those provisions of the Agreement of the parties that cover the instant case are as follows:
Nowhere does the record show that the Foreman assisted the Signal Repairman in clearing the trouble. It is also not denied by the Carrier that the Foreman did in fact take the place of the Claimant. It is therefore clear that what transpired in the instant case represents a violation of the Agreement by the Carrier. The Carrier seeks to negate remedial action because of its suggestion that prompt action was required by its Foreman because "failure to take the action he did with trains operating every few minutes might have been perilous". If special action might be necessary to avoid peril, it would be a simple thing to write into the Agreement permission to take action in an emergency. Such a clause does not appear and it is beyond the authority of this Board to inferentially, by an Award, add a provision to the contract not secured in direct negotiation between the parties. It is also to be noted that if the situation here presented does constitute "peril", it is strange indeed that the man assigned to prevent such peril should be granted two days a week off without a reserve employe being assigned to prevent such peril. 12432-10 ~0 15