THIRD DIVISION
(Supplemental)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad Company:
In behalf of Mr. Dick C~ for an equal amount of time and pay received by any new employe hired in the Signal Department subsequent to May 31, 1960, account of the Carrier's failure to comply with Rule 76 of the current Signalmens' Agreement. This claim to run until such time as Mr. Dick Carr is put to work in compliance with Rule 76 of the current Signalmens' Agreement. [Carrier's File No. L-130-195].
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: This dispute involves Rule 76 of the current Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad Company Signalmen's Agreement, which provides that the Carrier will give preference to sons of employes in their selection of new employes hired for work in the Signal Department covered by the Scope Rule of the Signalmen's Agreement.
On April 11, 1960, Mr. Dick Carr, the son of Mr. Tom Carr, a Rock Island signal employe for 45 years, wrote Mr. R. A. Watkins, General Chairman of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen requesting that he be given consideration for a job on the Rock Island Railroad after he finished college on May 31, 1960.
In accordance with Mr. Dick Carr's request, General Chairman Watkins wrote Mr. H. Jensen, Signal Engineer, under date of April 13, 1960, as follows:
rier", as provided for in Section 3, First (i) of the Act and, consequently, your Board has no jurisdiction aver the subject matter of the controversy.
There is no language contained in Rule 76, quoted in Carrier's Statement of Facts which makes it mandatory upon the Carrier to hire each and every "son" of an "employe" as the Organization is contending in the instant case. We also wish to call your Board's attention to the fact that there is no penalty provided in the above rule should preference not be given.
Inasmuch as petitioner's father, Tom Carr, died on June 26, 1953, he had no employe status as of May 31, 1960 and the claimant could not be considered the "son of an employe" as that term is used in Rule 76, under any circumstances.
We again wish to emphasize that the petitioner is not an "employe" as provided for in the Railway Labor Act and, therefore, the contention of the Committee should be dismissed and case removed from the docket of the Board.
OPINION OF BOARD: Under date of April 13, 1960, Petitioner requested that Carrier give preference under Agreement Rule 76 to one Dick Carr when hiring new employes. Rule 76 reads:
"SONS OF EMPLOYES -PREFERENCE: Preference will be given sons of employes in the selection of new employes for work coming within the scope of this agreement."
Dick Carr is the son of Tom Carr of whom the Carrier states that inasmuch as he "died on June 26, 1953, he had no employe status as of May 31, 1960 and the Claimant could not be considered the "son of an employe" as that term is used in Rule 76, under any circumstances."
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