NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
(Supplemental)
Edward A. Lynch,
Referee
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD SIGNALMEN
LOUISVILLE AND NASHVILLE RAILROAD COMPANY
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
Claim of the General Committee of the
Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the Louisville and Nashville Railroad
Company that:
(a) The Carrier violated and continues to violate the current
Signalmen's Agreement, as amended, especially Rule 68, when it fails
to include the classification of either Leading Signalman or Assistant
Foreman in the three (3) System Signal Gangs assigned to Foreman
B. E. Gaston, J. S. Branson, and W. A.
Greer.
(b) The Carrier promptly bulletin and fill positions of either
Leading Signalmen or Assistant Foreman in these gangs, in accordance with
requirements of
the Agreement, and pay the successful
applicants of the positions, beginning
September 1,
1963, the difference between what they did receive and what they would have re
ceived had
the positions been assigned properly.
[Carrier's File: G-122-20]
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: This dispute is a result of
Carrier's failure and/or refusal to assign either Leading Signalmen or
Assistant Foremen to work in
three (3
) of its System Signal Gangs, each
of which were composed of
twelve (12
) employes, working under the direction
of a Foreman.
During this same period
there were
at least two (2) System Signal
Gangs under the direction and supervision of General System Construction
Foreman R. L. Blackwell, and composed of twelve (12) employes each which
had Assistant Foremen assigned. They were the gangs to which E. T. Kirk
and J. E. Long were assigned as Foremen.
The System Signal Gangs which had neither Assistant Foremen nor
Leading Signalmen were the ones of which the Foremen
were B
. E. Gaston,
J. S. Branson, and W. A. Greer.
Your position that Rule 68 has been violated is necessarily based
on the contention that the examples contained in the rule were
intended as a mandatory pattern that must be followed. With this
we do not agree, it being our position that the `examples shown in
Rule 68(a) are simply, i.e., examples of what classifications it was
agreed a well-balanced gang should consist of with, as the rule
clearly provides, variations permitted according to necessity or requirements of the work to be performed.
For the reasons set forth above, the claim here presented is
invalid as it is not in accordance with the provisions of the time
limit rule. Furthermore, for the reasons also stated above, there
has been no violation of the applicable agreement and the claim is,
in any event without agreement support and is, therefore, declined.
Yours truly,
/s/ W. S. Scholl
Director of Personnel"
The agreement involved became effective February 16, 1949, and has been
revised to October 1, 1950. Copies of the agreement are on file with the
Third Division.
OPINION OF BOARD:
This claim is in essence the same as that presented in Award No. 13248 involving the same parties. In Award No. 13248
we found for the defending carrier. We now find Award No. 13248 to be
controlling and must deny this claim.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the
whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:
That the parties waived oral hearing;
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
That the Agreement was not violated.
AWARD
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of THIRD DIVISION
ATTEST: S. H. Schulty
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 31st day of October 1967.
Keenan Printing Co., Chicago, 111. Printed in U.S.A.
15918 11