NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company (Union Railway Company) that:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Under date of October 20, 1958, this Organization established a collective bargaining relationship with the Union Railway Company of Memphis, Tennessee, by adopting the Agreement covering signal employes on the Western and Southern Districts of the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, with certain specific changes. One such change was that there would be one seniority roster for the Union Railway Company covering two men who had been performing signal work on the Union Railway prior to that time. They were given a seniority date as Signalman of November 1, 1958, with C. V. Fleming No. 1 and D. R. Ryles No. 2. A copy of that agreement, effective November 1, 1958, is attached hereto as Brotherhood's Exhibit No. 9.
Under date of June 23, 1962, the parties cancelled the October 20, 1958 Agreement and extended the Missouri Pacific Agreement to cover the Union Railway Company, and dovetailed the names of Fleming and Ryles into the seniority roster of the Missouri Pacific, with the understanding that Messrs. Fleming and Ryles hold prior seniority rights to exercise seniority either by bidding or displacement to all bulletin positions on the Union Railway property. A copy of that Agreement is attached hereto as Brotherhood's Exhibit No. 10.
In a letter agreement dated February 19, 1965, following the acquisition of Memphis Union Station property by the Missouri Pacific, R. S. Call, former employe of Memphis Union Station Company, was given a service date on the Union Railway Company as of August 1, 1926, though his seniority date in Classes 4 and 5 as listed in Rule 401 would be April 7, 1964, as shown on the Signalmen's consolidated roster for the Missouri Pacific. It was also agreed that placing the letter "M" opposite Mr. Call's name on the seniority roster would signify that he shall have prior rights to a However, the General Chairman, despite the uncontroverted evidence, replied as follows on October 13, 1966:
The territory of the Union Railway Company at Memphis, Tennessee includes an electro-pneumatic interlocker which the hourly rated maintainer normally works on. However, on the dates of the claim herein, Carrier called the monthly rated employee to perform work on this interlocker which Organization contends violated Rule 309 of the Agreement. which in essence provides that unless registered absent, the regular assignee will, under the circumstances herein, be called to perform overtime work. The premise of the Organization's position in this connection is that the hourly rated employee is assigned to the interlocker.
We do not agree however. Both employees are assigned to Signal Maintainer positions covering the Union Railway Company territory which includes the interlocker. Therefore, either of these Signal Maintainers can work on the interlocker.
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