THIRD DIVISION

(Supplemental)




PARTIES TO DISPUTE:


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: Mr. Harry Markow had been assigned to a position of Signalman in a construction gang with headquarters at Catasauqua, Pa. Due to the abolishment of all construction forces, Mr. Markow could not hold a position on his home seniority district and was forced to displace on a position of Signal Maintainer with headquarters at Manchester, N.Y., which was on another seniority district. On June 11, 12, and 13, 1958, the Carrier assigned, required and/or permitted a Relay Inspector to install new relays and wiring for new manual control signal circuits for the automatic gate installation at Cedar Avenue, Middlesex, New Jersey, which is located on the claimant's home seniority district.


Inasmuch as the Classification Rules of the Signalmen's Agreement clearly define the difference between the duties of a Relay Inspector and a Signalman, Mr. Thomas F. DeRose, Local Chairman, presented the following claim to M. W. J. Varner, Signal Construction Engineer, under date July 5, 1958:





12501-12 177

    ment could be made by signal indication. Therefore, the work involved included changing and testing.


    In this connection, I call your attention to the provisions of Article 2, Section 20, of the schedule agreement which provides that when higher rated employes are temporarily used to perform lower rated work, the employes will be paid the higher rate, and that is exactly what was done in this case. Even in view of this, I advised you that I would be willing to agree to an understanding for the future in cases of similar work and circumstances that would be a basis for determining what class of Signal Department employes would be used as between men working in construction and other classes, and I am still willing to do this if you desire.


                    Yours truly,


                      /s/ C. L. Wagner

                      Chief of Personnel"


In conclusion, the Carrier respectfully reasserts that the instant claim is entirely without support under the governing agreement role and should either be denied in its entirety or dismissed for the reasons previously set forth herein.


OPINION OF BOARD: The facts are not in dispute. Carrier used a Relay Inspector to perform work designated as Signalmen's work. Claimant relies on the Classification Rule to support its claim that Carrier may not use a higher rated employe to do work classified at a lower rate.


The Classification Rule here contains no prohibition against the Carrier doing what the Organization protests. The mere inclusion of a classification rule does not, by itself, mean that the work of each classification will be restricted to the employes of the class. This is especially true where, as in this case, the several classifications are grouped in the same seniority class.


FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, Bends and holds:


    That the parties waived oral hearing;


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


    That Carrier did not violate the Agreement.


    AWARD Claim dismissed.


              NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD By Order of THIRD DIVISION


              ATTEST: S. H. Schulty

              Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 21st day of May 1964.