NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
(Supplemental)
Gene T. Ritter, Referee
CARRIER'S STATEMENT OF FACTS: There is in full force and effect an Agreement between the parties hereto, effective March 1, 1951, copy of which Agreement is on file in the offices of the Third Division. Contained in this Agreement is Rule 2-Classification-of which paragraphs (a) and (c) are pertinent to the claim being progressed:
Claimant R. W. Hartsock established Signal Department seniority on October 31, 1938, when he was employed as Signal Helper in Gang No. 541 at Indianapolis, Indiana. Claimant has held continuous employment since that date, and in addition to service as a Signal Helper, he has worked as Assistant Signal Maintainer, Signalman and Leading Signalman in Signal Gangs, Signal Maintainer, Leading Signal Maintainer and Signal Gang Foreman at various points on this Carrier. In the positions of Signal Maintainer, Leading Signal Maintainer and Signal Gang Foreman he has been responsible for the supervision of other employes, inspection, adjustment and proper maintenance of -signals and interlocking plants, flash-light crossing protection, as well as the preparation of reports and handling of tools, material and supplies necessary in the signal work he was required to perform.
Since March 2, 1953, with the exception of a two-month period-September 16, 1954-November 15, 1954, Claimant has worked as Signal Maintainer with headquarters at Marion, Indiana. In this position he performs the various Signal Department maintenance functions, as heretofore listed, on the territory Goshen, Indiana south to Anderson, Indiana-a distance of approximately 110 miles.
Also assigned on this same territory, with headquarters at Marion, Indiana, is Leading Signal Maintainer B. L. Schuck, who, in addition to performing the various Signal Department maintenance work, supervises the activities of Claimant Hartsock and is responsible for the proper maintenance and repair of the signal apparatus in the territory.
Claim here is progressed on the basis that Mr. Schuck, as Leading Signal Maintainer, must be accompanied at all times when on duty by, at least, one Signal Maintainer, which in this case would be Claimant Hartsock, the only Signal Maintainer assigned on this particular territory, notwithstanding he was on duty and under pay on claim dates.
OPINION OF BOARD: This claim resulted from Carrier making changes in maintenance positions between M.P. 58 and M.P. 180 on the Michigan Division. Prior to September 10, 1962, this territory was divided into three (3) sections and were assigned to employes Shoemaker, Hartsock and Schuck
respectively. On August 28, 1962, Carrier issued a bulletin which abolished Shoemaker's position; abolished Schuck's position; consolidated the three former maintenance sections into one (Section 526); and advertised a new position, Job No. M-78, which was a Leading Signal Maintainer with assigned hours, days off duty, and territory the same as Signal Maintainer Hartsock on Section 526. The new Leading Signal Maintainer's position was assigned to B. L. Schuck. This action had the effect of consolidating three maintenance sections into one, and of reducing the maintenance force on this territory from three to two employes. Prior to September 10, 1962 there had not been a position of Leading Maintainer assigned to this territory. It appears from the record that the newly formed maintenance gang (Leader Schuck and Maintainer Hartsock) worked together and in the presence of one another at all times, at the outset. However, on the fourth day (September 13, 1962) Leading Maintainer Schuck instructed Maintainer Hartsock that he was to perform certain work on one part of the territory while Schuck went in the opposite direction and performed another job by himself. After that, they worked together on some days-and on others separately and alone.
Claimant contends that Carrier violated the agreement by assigning Leading Maintainer Schuck to work alone. For this alleged violation, Claimant Hartsock makes claim for eight hours at the punitive rate and additional compensation at the punitive rate for an amount of time equal to that which Leading Maintainer Schuck works alone from September 13, 1962 until the violation is discontinued.
Carrier contends that Rule 2(a) contemplates only that the Signal Maintainer is under the general direction of the Leading Signal Maintainer; that the Leading Signal Maintainer is not required by Rule 2(a) to be in continuous personal contact with the Signal Maintainer; and that the two classifications under Rule 2 (Leading Signal Maintainer and Signal Maintainer) serve end yto determine rates of pay and supervisory authority.
Interpretation of rules similar to Rule 2 in prior awards compel this Board to accept Carrier's contention in this proceeding.
In Award No. 13819, this Board interpreted a rule similar to Rule 2(a) herein by stating:
Again in Award No. 12536 it was set out that the existence of a Leading Signal Maintainer did not per se compel the assignment to his complement of a Signal Maintainer.
Award No. 14007 followed Award No. 13819 (supra) and cited Award No. 12536 when it ruled that a Carrier may properly call upon a Leading Maintainer to perform the work without the assistance of a Maintainer.
Rule 2(a) herein serves to the rate of pay and imposes supervisory responsibility upon the Leading Maintainer. It does not preclude him from working out of the presence of other employes.
The record in the instant proceeding indicates that Claimant Hartsock was acting under the direction and supervisio not Leading Maintainer Schuck even though they might be at opposite ends of the assigned territory. There is no denial by either of the parties that the responsibility of the assigned territory was in the lap of Leading Maintainer Schuck.
We do not agree that conceptually the term "supervision" requires "geographic adjacency" in the sense stressed by the Organization (Awards 6582 and 5830).
There is no showing that the Claimant suffered any monetary loss or that his work was hampered because of lack of physical provimity to the Leading Maintainer.
For the reason that this issue has been resolved on the question of the right of a Leading Maintainer to work alone, the issues of practice, damages, and continuing violation are moot and will not be discussed in this award.
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
DISSENT TO AWARD NO. 14760
DOCKET NO. SG-14500
Award No. 14760 is palpable error. The Majority, in order to reach their decision, have read the primary paragraph of the controlling rule in a vacuum and then, and then only, found comfort in Awards pertaining to other parties and their distinguishable agreements. The present parties found it necessary to explain their intent in paragraphs (b) and (d) of the confronting Rule 2 in order to obtain that which the Majority here grants carrier in paragraph (a). Clearly, had the parties intended that the Majority's interpretation be applied to paragraph (a) as it is now written, their explanation in paragraphs (b) and (d) would not have been necessary. The Majority has placed the parties in the posture of having performed a useless act in controvention of our holdings in Awards 5492 and 6723.