4W am Award No. 16676
Docket No. SG-16947

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

THIRD DIVISION

(Supplemental)




PARTIES TO DISPUTE:



STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the Central of Georgia Railway Company that:


















EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: This claim is the result of Carrier's contracting out work covered by the Scope of the Signalmen's Agreement. The work involved the installation of highway crossing signals at




The foregoing correspondence shows that this vague, indefinite and improper claim was declined by each and every officer of the Carrier.


On April 16, 1965, Carrier entered into a so-called stabilization of employment agreement with employes of the signalmen's class or craft, a cony of which agreement is on file with your Board and is, by reference, made part and parcel of this submission as though reproduced herein word for word.


Under the April 16, 1965 agreement, all the claimants except J. N. Ketchem, J. L. Taylor and W. D. Russell are "protected employes" and under Article IV of such agreement are not to be placed in a worse position with respect to compensation than the normal rate of compensation of positions to which assigned on October 1, 1964 plus any subsequent general wage increases. J. N. Ketchem, J. L. Taylor and W. D. Russell are all relatively new employes; in fact, Ketchem and Russell resigned from the service in December, 1965. The "protected employes" are guaranteed the rate of compensation received on October 1, 1964 so long as they protect their rights and until such time as they retire, die or are discharged for cause. Having been guaranteed lifetime pay under the conditions outlined in the referred to agreement, they cannot expect more.




OPINION OF BOARD: Petitioner alleges a violation of the Scope Rule of the Agreement when Carrier contracted with the Union Switch and Signal Company to install highway crossing signals between Jonesboro and Atlanta, Georgia.


The parties and the issue are identical to those discussed in our Award 16675. In essence, as we view the claim as submitted, it is vague and indefinite and would require the Carrier to develop the claim to give it a degree of specificity which it is now lacking. For the foregoing reason and for the reasons stated in the above award, we will dismiss the claim.


FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving the parties to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon, and upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:


That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are Tespectively 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.


16676 11







Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 25th day of October 1968.

DISSENT TO AWARDS NOS. 16675 AND 16676

DOCKETS SG-17018 AND 16947


The Majority's holdings that the claims presented in Awards Nos. 16675 and 16676 are vague and indefinite area mockery of our purpose and in conflict with others of our Awards involving the present as well as other parties. Awards Nos. 16675 and 16676 being in error, we dissent.



Keenan Printing Co., Chicago, 111. Printed in U.S.A.
16676 12