NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

THIRD DIVISION

(Supplemental)

Bernard E. Perelaon, Referee

BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD SIGNALMEN

Railroad Company - Ft. Worth and Denver Railway Company

(Burlington-Rock Island Railroad Company)

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the Joint Texas Division of the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad Company, Fort Worth and Denver Railway Company, that:

(a) The Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement, as amended, particularly Rules 3, 11, 22, 23 and 39, when, on February 4, 1963, it required a monthly-rated Signal Maintainer, Mr. J. J. Zalesak (whose regular assigned hours are from 8:00 A. M. to 12:00 Noon, and from 1:00 P. M. to 5:00 P. M.) to perform work on another signal maintenance territory from 5:00 A. M. to 2:30 P. M., and then did not allow him any additional compensation.

(b) The Carrier be required to compensate Mr. Zalesak for nine

(9) hours and thirty (30) minutes at punitive rate of pay for this

violation; this to be paid him in addition to what he may have

already been paid for this date. [Carrier's File: Jt SG-3.]

EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: As indicated by our Statement of Claim, this dispute is a result of the Carrier's action in requiring a monthlyrated Signal Maintainer to perform signal work on another signal maintenance territory. A basic question for this Board to decide is whether or not a monthlyrated Signal Maintainer is entitled to additional compensation (beyond the established monthly rate) for work Carrier requires him to perform beyond the limits of the territory to which he had been assigned.

Carrier contends that a monthly rate is paid to a Signal Maintainer to compensate him for all services rendered Mondays through Saturdays anywhere on the entire railroad-whereas we hold that the monthly rate is paid to a Signal Maintainer for performing routine maintenance work Mondays through

These signals are located in the territory between Mile Post 97.3 and Mile Post 141.7 on territory of signal maintainer headquartered at Richard&, Texas, and adjacent to territory of claimant that extends from Mile Post 60.6 to Mile Post 97.3. The signal maintainer headquartered at Richards was absent from duty on the claim date without permission or prior knowledge of Carrier.

The agreement between the Joint Texas Division of the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad Company-Fort Worth and Denver Railway Company and the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen, effective January 1, 1955, is on file with the Board and by this reference is made part of this submission.

OPINION OF BOARD: The Claimant was a monthly rated Signal Maintainer with regular assigned working hours from 8:00 A. M. to 12:00 Noon, and from 1:00 P. M. to 5:00 P. M. He performs regular signal maintenance work six days per week-Monday through Saturday. On Monday, February 4 1963, a regular assigned work day, he was required to perform signal work off his assigned territory from 5:00 A. M. until 2:30 P. M. and by reason thereof submitted a claim for nine and one-half (9%z) hours' overtime and requested pay at the punitive rate.

Carrier denied the claim on the ground that Claimant worked on a regular assigned work day and being a monthly rated employe he is paid a monthly rate, under the Agreement, which covers any and all regular and emergency service Monday through Saturday.

The material facts in this case are not in dispute.

The Brotherhood claims Carrier violated Rules 3, 11, 22, 23 and 39 of the Agreement.

An examination of the record discloses that the main point in issue is whether or not the Claimant in this dispute 'is entitled to additional compensation when taken off his own territory and used on another territory to perform work which is part of another assignment." (Page 4 of Record-Brotherhood Ex Parte Submission.)

The Brotherhood contends that Carrier violated more particularly Rule 3 of the Agreement in that it required the Claimant to perform work outside of his designated territory and for that reason the Claimant is entitled to payment for such services.

Rule 3 of the Agreement reads as follows:

"Signalman, Signal Maintainer. An employe assigned to perform work generally recognized as signal work as outlined in this agreement shall be classified as a signalman or signal maintainer.

NOTE: Signal maintainer referred to in Rule 3 shall mean an employe assigned to a specific territory and/or plants.

A signalman shall mean an employe working in a gang."

In Award 14100 (House), which was between the same parties and in which dispute the Brotherhood raised the same question, we held:

"Brotherhood's argument is that since the two signal employes who should have been borrowed would not have been working in a shop they would have to have been working as a 'signal gang.' A normal reading of the 'Note' to Rule 5 does not indicate that it was intended to be an absolute definition of 'signal gang,' but rather that it provide a means for distinguishing the title 'signal maintainer' from the title 'signalman'; . . ." (Emphasis ours.)

The Brotherhood claims a violation of Rule 11. It reads as follows:

"Absorbing Overtime. Employes will not be required to suspend work during regular working hours to absorb overtime."

"To support the charge of rule violation, the Employes must show that a Claimant has been required to suspend work on his assignment and to perform the work of another position which, otherwise, would have to have been performed on an overtime basis by the incumbent of the latter position. Awards 7167, 5331.

The record in this case establishes that neither of the Claimants was required to suspend work on his assignment. Each worked his regular hours and no one, including the incumbent of Position No. 98, worked any overtime. The fact that additional duties may have been imposed upon Claimants and that they were required to work inside or outside is not material. That Carrier management may add to, subtract from or otherwise change the duties of a position and even require those duties to be performed at two different locations, as a general proposition, has been settled on this property. (See Award 8428, involving these same parties.) Nor is there any rule in the Agreement before us which expressly or impliedly required this Carrier to pay the punitive rate for work which can properly be accomplished at the straight time rate. (Cf. Award 7227.)"

"(a) Monthly Rated Employes. Foremen and Signal Maintainers will be paid the monthly rate specified in Rule 22 and an employe assigned to the maintenance of a territory who does not return to his home station daily may be paid the applicable monthly rate re-

ferred to in Rule 22, which shall constitute compensation for all services rendered except as hereinafter provided in this rule." (Emphasis ours.)

There is no dispute but that the Claimant is one of the employes coming within the purview of Rule 23. There can be no question but that Rule 23 is a special rule and covers monthly rated employes.

It is a well established rule and/or principle of contract law that in construing and/or interpreting a contract we look to the whole agreement to ascertain the intention of the parties to it.

It is also a well established rule and/or principle of law that where in an agreement there are general and special provisions, the special provisions prevail over the general rules in the agreement.

This Board has followed this rule and/or principle of law on any number occasions.

In Award 6651 (Rader), we held:

. It is the general rule in construing of all contracts that a specific provision dealing with a certain condition will prevail over other rules dealing with certain phases of the situation in a general manner and relatng to overall matters which may arise ....

"