THIRD DIVISION
(Supplemental)
SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY
(Pacific Lines)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the Southern Pacific Company that:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: At the time this dispute arose, Claimant Beiser was the incumbent of a Leading Signalman position on Signal Gang No. 1, with headquarters in trailer houses at Brooklyn Yard, near Portland, Oregon. Listed below, in seniority order, are the men assigned to the gang at that time:
Due to damage caused by a severe wind storm, the Carrier considered it necessary to call employes of Signal Gang No. 1 for overtime service on Sunday, October 14, 1962, and those called worked from noon until 2:00 A. M. the next day, a total of fourteen (14) hours.
One highway identified as 99 is a freeway running directly past Donald, Signalman Erb's residence approximately 25 miles from Brooklyn. The other highway identified as 99 E runs through Canby, claimant's residence, approximately 20 miles from Brooklyn. Brooklyn is a district within the city limits of Portland.
4. Correspondence which passed between the Local Chairman and Carrier's division officers in connection with this claim is reproduced as Carrier's Exhibit B; and correspondence passing between the General Chairman and Carrier's Assistant Manager of Personnel is reproduced as Carrier's Exhibit C.
OPINION OF BOARD: This Claim is based on Carrier's alleged failure to call and assign Claimant, a Leading Signalman for overtime service in the repair of the Signal system on account of wind damage, it being Claimant's contention that he had been previously assigned to Signal Gang No. 1 and that all of Signalmen who were used on this work were junior to him on Gang No. 1.
Carrier at the panel discussion raised the issue as to whether the word "class" as it appears in the last paragraph in Rule 13 of the Agreement, upon which Claimant relies, refers to a "class" as defined in Article I of the Agreement.
Petitioner objects to a consideration of this question, as it was not raised by either party on the property. While this argument was first presented at the panel discussion, it involves the interpretation of a rule of the Agreement upon which Claimant relies, not a question of fact and Carrier may properly raise it. See Award 10494-Dugan.
The last paragraph of Rule 13 which is pertinent to this Opinion reads, as follows:
Claimant has been described in the record as a Leading Signalman. Under Article 1, Rule 4 of the agreement, we note the following:
Thus we find that the Claimant who was a Leading Signalman is in the Leading Signalmanrs class and not in the Signalman's class. There was no obligation on Carrier's part under the Agreement to have called him as he was in a different class.
See Award 12134-Sempliner where the foregoing interpretation was made. Award 12134 has been followed on this property in Award 12936Yagoda and Award 13262-Moore, and as the conclusions reached in these awards were not palpably erroneous we are obligated to follow them.
Having reached this conclusion, we find it unnecessary to comment on other questions presented in the record.
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