NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
(Supplemental)
There is an agreement in effect between the parties to this dispute bearing an effective date of July 1, 1952, as amended, which, by reference, is made a part of the record in this dispute. Amendments to this agreement includes the Memorandum of Agreement attached hereto as Brotherhood's Exhibit No. 10.
1. There is an agreement in effect between the parties to this dispute bearing an effective date of July 1, 1952 on file with your Board which by thie reference is made a part of this submission.
2. This submission covers three separate claims filed by the Employes as a result of Carrier's use of a relief signal maintainer with headquarters at 61st Street, Chicago, Illinois, to perform work at Joliet, Illinois, on various dates between October 27, 1964 and November 10, 1964.
3. To avoid burdening the record Carrier has not included copies of the correspondence on the property concerning these three claims as it is thought the Employes would produce such correspondence as a part of their submissions. However, Carrier will refer to various portions of this correspondence, as necessary, and reproduce pertinent portions of same. Carrier will also take exception in its rebuttal statement to any errors or omissions in the Employes' reproduction of such correspondence.
4. Carrier's Exhibit A is a copy of a Memorandum of Agreement dated September 9, 1954, which established the Vacation Relief Signal Maintainer's. position whose use at Joliet precipitated these claims.
OPINION OF BOARD: On the dates set out in the Statement of Claim, Signal Maintainer Yuknis, a relief signal maintainer with headquarters at 61st Street, Chicago, Illinois, was used by Carrier to work in a programmed modification of its signal system at Joliet Union Depot Interlocking Plant, Joliet, Illinois. The Petitioner contends that this violated the rights of Claimant M. L. Barry, a relief signal maintainer, headquartered at Joliet Union Depot Interlocking Plant, on those days and during those hours when he was not simultaneously under compensable employment. The Petitioner cites Rules 5, 14, 15, 17, IS and 19 of the controlling agreement in its Statement of Claim.
We do not find that any of the rules cited by Petitioner are applicable to the facts and circumstances in the instant case and will therefore deny the claim.
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;