Award No. 17181 Docket No. SG-17724
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the Southern Pacific Company (former Pacific Electric Railway Company) that:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Claimant W. E. Smith is regularly assigned as Signal Maintainer on the Watts District with headquarters at Dominguez Yard, Compton, California. Watts Block on the Wilmington Branch is included in his territorial assignment.
It has been the practice to call the Signal Maintainer for trouble on his assigned territory.
At 4:00 P.M. March 5, 1967, signal trouble was reported at Watts Block, and Signal Maintainers having territories which do not adjoin the one in question were called to make repairs. The first maintainer was called by an operator at Los Nietos Yard; the second was called by the first maintainer upon instructions received from an Assistant Signal Supervisor over the phone. They worked until 7:00 P.M. and were paid three (3) hours each at the time and one-half rate.
Inasmuch as Mr. Smith was available but not called for service on his assigned territory-as is indicated by Mrs. smith's statement in the recordclaim on his behalf was entered by the Local Chairman. The claim was for three (3) hours at time and one-half rate, the amount Signal Maintainer Smith would have been paid had he properly been called.
to correct this signal trouble, and was released from this service at 7 P.M." In support of claim it was stated that claimant ". . was available and willing to perform the work, his telephone was in good repair, and he should have been called to perform the work . . ." No rule violation was cited; however, it was stated that "It has been the practice for many years to call Signal Maintainers for signal trouble on their assigned territories, both during their regular working hours, and during the overtime hours. For the Company to ignore the assigned employe during the overtime hours violates the working conditions acquired over the years by the employes through practices of the Company." This correspondence is reproduced and attached as Carrier's Exhibit "D."
Carrier's Assistant Manager of Personnel acknowledged the appeal on April 6, 1967, and on April 14, 1967, advised "This case will be discussed in conference with you at the first available opportunity." On April 25, 1967, Carrier confirmed conference discussion and advised, as follows:
On May 18, 1967, Petitioner's General Chairman, referring to Carrier's denial of April 25, 1967, wrote to Carrier's Assistant Manager of Personnel, taking exception thereto, and stated in part therein as follows:
This correspondence, together with attached statements referred to therein, is reproduced and attached as Carrier's Exhibit "F."
OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant, a regularly assigned Signal Maintainer, claims the agreement was violated when Carrier failed to call him for work on his assigned territory due to signal trouble, but instead called another Signal Maintainer to do the repair work.
Claimant alleges that Carrier has always in the past called the Signal Maintainer of the territory where the trouble is located to perform the work, and that Carrier failed to call Claimant on the date in question.
Claimant introduced into evidence a statement from his wife stating that Claimant was at home and available for work at 4:00 P.M. on Sunday,
March 5, 1967 and that Claimant's telephone was in good working order, and that Claimant was not called out to work.
Carrier's sole defense to this claim is that past practice was followed in this instance when Carrier's Los Nietos Operator called Claimant by phone at his home at approximately 3:50 P.M. on said date in question but that no one answered the phone.
Examination of the record before this Board shows that Carrier failed to offer proof from said Los Nietos Operator that he called Claimant at his home by telephone on the date involved in this dispute. Carrier attempts to establish its contention that the Claimant was called by alleging that the 1laintainer who performed the work was advised by Carrier's Los Nietas Operator that said operator had called Claimant but that Claimant had not anawered his phone.
Thus, it is seen that Carrier failed to adduce proof into the record showing that an attempt had been made to call Claimant prior to calling another maintainer to do the work. Therefore, the claim must be sustained.
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