STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the Southern Railway Company et al.:
On behalf of all Signal Foreman and the personnel of their respective gangs (as identified by bulletin assignments) for reimbursement for their expenses for meals not served in camp cars since camp cars have not been furnished by the Carrier as provided for in Rule 54 of the current Signalmen's Agreement. This is an additional claim to cover the additional signal gangs and added employes who are now in service using house trailers who were not in service when the other similar claim was filed and to take care of the many changes in the personnel of all signal gangs which may be involved where employes are adversely affected to the effect that all of those who are required to pay for their work day meals not served in camp cars, while not living in camp cars, be reimbursed for all necessary expenses for meals not furnished by the Carrier and/or meals served in the respective house trailers while living in trailers and not furnished camp cars as so provided for in the agreement. Claim to begin 60 days prior to March 3, 1959, and to continue thereafter until proper corrections are made and the violation discontinued. [Carrier's File: SG-13260}
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: For many years, the Carrier had assigned various signal employes to camp cars and those cars were used as sleeping and dining quarters and were considered the home station of the employes assigned thereto. At least since June 29, 1921, when a Signalmen's Agreement was negotiated on this Carrier, the camp cars referred to have been on-track cars suitable for movement by any designated train with safety.
Before or during June 1958, the Carrier began to furnish trailer houses to employes of the various signal gangs in lieu of the camp cars that had been furnished for at least 37 years. This action on the part of the Carrier was unilateral and arbitrary as there was no attempt on the part of the Carrier to negotiate any provision concerning the use of house trailers in lieu of the camp cars; neither did the Carrier make any attempt to discuss this matter with the Brotherhood, but just put the trailer at the location of the camp cars and instructed the employes to move into the trailers as the camp cars were being discontinued.
with respect to that agreeable to themselves." Despite this agreement provision that the company is not responsible for paying for the food consumed by signal forces living in camp cars, the Brotherhood here attempts to have the Board disregard this provision of the contract and make an award contrary thereto holding that the company has contracted to pay for the food consumed by the employes. It goes without saying that the Board lacks authority to do what is demanded.
The principle is firmly established that prerogatives inherent in management and which are not surrendered by the terms of a collective bargaining agreement are retained by the management. Under the terms of an agreement, a carrier is obligated to do or not to do certain things. The Railway Company is obligated to do only the things it has contracted to do and is prevented from doing the things which it has agreed it would not do. A carriers is unquestionably free to do any and all the things it has not agreed to restrict itself from doing. The only extent to which the Carriers here involved have obligated themselves to their signal employes insofar as camp cars are concerned is spelled out in Rule 54 of the Signalmen's Agreement in evidence. Not in any language contained in that rule have the Carriers negotiated away their right to exercise their managerial prerogatives and furnish the kind of cars for living quarters that they deem suitable for such use, whether they be on-track camp cars or off-track camp cars (automotive trailers).
The mere fact that the Carriers in the exercise of their managerial prerogatives furnished on-track camp cars (converted box cars in most instances) as living quarters for movable signal gangs for a number of years does not mean that they have contracted with their signal employes to always furnish that type of camp car, or that the type of camp car could not be changed without the concurrence of the employes and their representatives. The Carriers, not having negotiated away their right to furnish the kind of cars for living quarters they deem suitable for such use, had not contractual obligation to the employes or to the Brotherhood to obtain their concurrence before changing the type of camp car furnished as living quarters for movable signal forces. The effective Signalmen's Agreement was not therefore violated when the Carriers elected to furnish movable signal gangs with no fixed headquarters off-track camp cars (automotive trailers) as living quarters, rather than furnish on-track camp cars. There is not therefore any basis for the claim and demand which the Brotherhood here attempts to assert.
(a) The claim and demand are barred and should, therefore, be dismissed by the Board for want of jurisdiction.
(b) The effective Signalmen's Agreement has not been violated as alleged and there is no basis for the claim and demand which the Brotherhood here attempts to assert. Rule 54 of the agreement clearly provides that "The company has no responsibility for the food of employes living in camp cars."
Claim, being barred, should be dismissed by the Board for want of jurisdiction. If, despite this fact, the Board assumes jurisdiction, it cannot do other than make a denial award.
OPINION OF BOARD: The question presented to the Board is an alleged violation of Rule 54: