NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

THIRD DIVISION




PARTIES TO DISPUTE:



STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the Penn Central Company (Former Pennsylvania Railroad Company) that:




EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: On October 27, 1966, Carrier issued written instructions to Inspectors and Foremen under the jurisdiction of Communication & Signal Supervisor R. C. Ryberg that they were required to be available for calls. They were instructed to arrange compliance and advise either the Supervisor or Assistant Supervisor C. & S. where they could be contacted when away from home after regular working hours. The notice signed by Mr. Rybert is Brotherhood's Exhibit No. 1.


Inasmuch as the controlling Agreement contains no "Subject-to-Call" rule and there is no requirements for the employes to provide stand-by service without being paid additional compensation for such service, a claim was entered by Local Chairman D. Murphy on behalf of the seven (7) employes in the so-called "Foreman Class", who were directly affected by the directive and to whom the notice had been addressed. The claim is Brotherhood's Exhibit No. 2 and was dated November 11, 1966.



In his letter of November 21, 1966, the Supervisor, C.&S. rescinded the instructions contained in his notice of October 27th.


Each of the named Claimants is regularly assigned either as a Foreman, C.&S. or as an Inspector, C.&S. on the Pittsburgh Division.


By letter dated November 11, 1966, the Local Chairman, Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen, presented a claim identical to that outlined above in the Employes' Statement of Claim to the Supervisor, C.&S. The Supervisor denied the claim on November 21, 1966.


The claim was handled thereafter in accordance with the normal grievance procedure to the Manager, Labor Relations (now Director, Labor Relations), the highest officer of the Carrier designated to handle disputes. In progressing the claim, the parties prepared a Joint Submission, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit "1".


The General Chairman presented the claim to the Manager, Labor Relations at their meeting on October 24, 1967. The Manager denied the claim by letter of December 18, 1967, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit "2".


Therefore, so far as the Carrier is able to anticipate the basis of this claim, the questions to be decided by your Honorable Board are whether Carrier violated the Rules Agreement and whether the Claimants are entitled to the compensation claimed.




OPINION OF BOARD: On October 27, 1966, the Carrier's (former Pennsylvania Railroad Company) Supervisor, Communcations and Signals, Pittsburgh Division, issued the following notice to Foremen, C. & S. and Inspectors, C. &. S.:






The instructions were later rescinded on November 21, 1966.

Article 5, Section 1, paragraphs (a) through (e) of the applicable Agreement, reads:






17324 8






The Petitioner contends that the instructions issued on October 27, 1966, were in violation of the quoted section of Article 5, in that the instructions required the Claimants to be available for calls and the Carrier refused to pay them for such service.


Article 5 clearly contemplates that employes covered will be used outside their normal hours and provides the method of pay for such service.


We agree with the argument on behalf of Carrier that if the Carrier is required to call Claimants for service outside their normal hours, there is also an obligation on Claimants to be available. The existence of the instructions of October 27, 1966, in itself, did not cause any of the Claimants to perform any service outside of their normal hours. The notice did nothing more than to instruct the Claimants to notify the Supervisor or the Assistant Supervisor of their whereabouts if they anticipated being away from their home for "any lengthy period of time."


17324 9

There is no justification for the claims in behalf of Claimants for payments the same as if they performed service on the rest days of their assignments or outside their regular hours as set forth in paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) of Section 1, Article 6, of the Agreement. The claim will, therefore, be denied.


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














Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 24th day of July 1969.

Central Publishing Co., Indianapolis, Ind. 46206 Printed in U.S.A.

17324 10