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: This dispute arose because, during April and May 1967, two (2) Signal Inspectors of the Southern Pacific Railroad, who hold no seniority on the Pacific Electric Railway Company were assigned to supervise the work of a Signal Inspector of the Pacific Electric Railway Company while making tests, wiring changes and other modifications to the interlocking system at Bell Tower, Claremont Tower, Clearwater Tower, El Monte Tower and Watts Blocks, all locations on the Pacific Electric Railway Company property.
The Scope Rule of the Signalmen's Agreement with the Pacific Electric Railway Company covers supervising of employes engaged in the work involved herein, and is quoted below for ready reference.
This correspondence is reproduced and attached hereto as Carrier's Exhibit "F".
OPINION OF BOARD: In August 1965, the corporate structure of the Pacific Electric Railway Company was absorbed by the Southern Pacific Company. It is undisputed that this merger left unaffected the status of the former Pacific Electric employes as a separate group, the Signalmen employes continuing under the same agreement as theretofor.
The Carrier's statement is undisputed that immediately preceding the claim dates herein, Carrier had received Interstate Commerce Commission signal inspection reports alleging violation of I.C.C. Rules and Regulations with respect to signal facilities on the former Pacific Electric .Railway Company. In reaction thereto, Carrier decided to assign two employees from its General Office, classified as Signal Inspector-System, to perform certain duties in connection with the signal employees and signal equipment and facilities of the former Pacific Electric Railway Company.
It is undisputed that these Signal Inspectors hold no seniority on the Pacific Electric Railway Company. The work assigned to them in April and May, 1967 is described by Carrier as " . . to accompany the SignalInspector of the former Pacific Electric Railway Company signal force during a special inspection; they were also readily available to answer any questions with regard to the technicalities of the signal apparatus. Where it was necessary to make any adjustments or circuit changes, only former Pacific Electric Railway Company signal forces were used to perform the work, after it was determined by the former Pacific Electric Signal Inspector that be could not perform all the service himself."
Employes invoke the Scope Rule of the Signalmen's Agreement which includes in the listed functions those engaged in "supervision" as well as "inspecting" of all signal systems, apparatus and devices and expressly defines (in Article 1, Rule 1) the duties of an Assistant Signal Supervisor as "an employee assigned to the duties of supervising the work of other employees covered by this agreement".
The instant claims are for compensation to two Signal Maintainers employed at the Pacific Electric Railway facilities for dates on which it is
claimed their rightful work was usurped, "in addition to any compensation allowed these employes, at the time and one-half rate of Assistant Signal Supervisor". In support of said claims, it is contended that the two Signal Maintainers could have performed the Assistant Signal Supervisor's duties on the dates involved had they been given the opportunity.
It is our opinion that the claims made here - that Agreement rights were violated to the injury of certain named claimants - have not been proven.
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; anf