STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the Lehigh Valley Railroad Company, that:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: This dispute resulted when on September 26, 1967, the Carrier failed to call regularly assigned Signal Maintainer H. Markow with headquarters at Slatington, Pa., on his assigned territory and instead called and used regularly assigned Signal Maintainer A. Benkovic from the adjoining territory, with headquarters at Allentown, Pa.
On October 4, 1967, the Brotherhood's Local Chairman filed a claim on behalf of Signal Maintainer H. Markow for 15 1/2 hours at the overtime rate which was the amount of overtime he was deprived of earning as a result of the Carrier improperly calling and using the adjoining Signal Maintainer. (Brotherhood's Exhibit No. 1).
The dispute was handled on the property in the usual and proper manner, up to and including the highest officer of the Carrier designated to handle such disputes, without obtaining a satisfactory settlement.
There is an agreement in effect between the parties herein, bearing an effective date of July 1, 1942, revised September 1, 1949, as amended, which is by reference made a part of the record in this dispute.
CARRIER'S STATEMENT OF FACTS: There is in effect between the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen and this Carrier an agreement dated
five hours at straight time to the claimant only because of the unusual cir cumstances involved in the case. The Employees could not accept the offer and agreed the claim would be respectfully denied.
OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant is the assigned Signal Maintainer in the territory from M.P. 119.3 to M.P. 95.0 with assigned hours 7:30 A.M. to 4:00 P.M., Monday thruh Friday. Sometime after 4:00 P.M. on Tuesday, September 26, 1967 the remote controlled switches at two interlocking plants within the territory assigned to Claimant failed to operate. In order to permit trains to proceed a Signal Maintainer from the immediate adjacent territory who was already on duty, having been called because of trouble being experienced on the territory assigned to him, was instructed to proceed to the remote controlled interlockings in Claimant's territory to crank switches by hand. The Maintainer from the adjacent territory consumed five hours in the performance of service in Claimant's assigned territory.
Carrier asserts that an emergency existed but the record is lacking in evidence sufficient to support such assertion.
The record does show that Carrier made no attempt whatever to call Claimant and assumed he was not available because of being enroute to his home 20 miles distance following completion of his assigned duty tour. Since Carrier made no effort to call Claimant we will sustain the claim to the extent of five hours since this is the amount of time that the Maintainer from the adjacent territory spent in performing service in Claimant's assigned territory. Payment is to be at the time and one-half rate since this is the rate that Claimant would have received had he performed the service.
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
Claim sustained for five hours at the time and one-half rate as indicated in the Opinion.