NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

THIRD DIVISION

(Supplemental)

Herbert J. Mesigh, Referee

BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD SIGNALMEN

UNION RAILROAD COMPANY

(a) Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement, as amended, particularly Rule 2(b), when, on various dates during September, 1965, it instructed signal employes to report for duty at other than their regularly assigned home station.

(b) Carrier be required to compensate each such signal employe one hour's pay at one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for each such day, as follows:

Name Dates in September, 1965 Total Hours

R. R. Woodside 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 9

R. F. McEwen 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 6

J. F. Koresko 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 7

H. C. Potts 7, 8, 9, 10, 13 5

W. F. Friedhof 11, 12 2

A. G. Cinna 7 1

W. S. Miller 7 1

As the carrier understands the employes' grievance, they are contending that the carrier violated Rule 2(b) of the existing agreement between the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen and Union Railroad and should allow the claimants in question one hour travel time because they were instructed to report for duty at the North Bessemer Tunnel area.

(Exhibits not reproduced.)

OPINION OF BOARD: This is a claim on behalf of the Organization of seven named Signalmen employes who allege that Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement, as amended, particularly Rule 2(b), when, on various dates during September, 1965, it instructed them to report for duty at other than their regularly assigned home station at Duquesne.

Rule No. 2-Hours of Service, reads as follows:

"(b) An employe's time will begin and end at his home station."

The claim is for one hour's pay each at time and one-half their respective rates, for each day required to report for duty at the North Bessemer Tunnel, being away from their home station Duquesne. The claim is for "traveling time and for inconvenience."

The Carrier contends that it has properly compensated all the employes involved; that there is no rule requirement to pay employes for travel time and inconvenience; that the work involved was temporary in nature and filled in accordance with established practice, Rule 13(b); that when the employes were assigned to the work at North Bessemer Tunnel, this became their starting point for the purpose of compliance with Rule 13(b).

There is no dispute that Carrier complied with the terms of Rule 7 by paying the Claimants overtime rates when placed on the second and third turns at North Bessemer.

The thrust of the Employes' argument is that these were new positions created and were therefore required to be bulletined in compliance with Rule 13(a), and were not, as alleged by Carrier, vacancies per se or temporary in nature.

In our opinion, the Carrier has established that the work in question was of a temporary nature (10 days), therefore, Carrier complied with Rule 13(b) which permits it to fill these vacancies without advertising same as per Rule 13(a).

Rule 2(b) is unambiguous on its face but by its terms it does not restrict, limit or impose a contractual restriction upon the Carrier to refrain from creating temporary jobs on this property nor does Rule 2(b) restrict Carrier in changing the location of the home station. In the instant dispute, the Claimants began their work day at North Bessemer Tunnel and concluded it at this location. Duquesne was not their home station in this, case.

The Board finds that in the absence of restricting provisions in the Agreement, Carrier did not exceed its authority under Rule 2(b). Further, this Board has often held that it is the function of Management to, determine the manner and place where the work shall be done as well as the number of employees needed to perform the work. The exception being when said managerail prerogative is limited or relinquished by agreement with the Organization.

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 am 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

The Agreement was not violated.

AWARD