(a) Carrier violated the provisions of Rule 9 of the current working Agreement, in effect March 1, 1951, when Signal Maintainers D. W. Pierce and C. Parent were required to perform work off of their respectively assigned territories, Mr. Pierce assigned headquarters being at Wyndotte, Michigan, and Mr. Parent assigned headquarters being at West Detroit Interlocker in Detroit, Michigan, and the location they were assigned to perform the work being at a location West of Lonyo Road in Detroit, Michigan, and such location not being on or within their assigned territorial limits, and the work they performed was in connection with the installation of new cressovers at the Lonyo Road location.
(b) Carrier now is required to pay Signal Maintainer D. W. Pierce 8 hours each day at the pro rata rate of. pay as penalty time for the dates of December 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 30 and 31, 1968, and January 2 and 3, 1969, and pay Signal Maintainer C. Parent 8 hours each day at the pro rata rate of pay as penalty time for the dates of December 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 31, 1968, and January 2, 3 and 7, 1969. (Carrier's File: Sig. C-29.)
This dispute was handled in the usual and proper manner on the prop, erty, up to and including the highest officer of the Carrier designated to handle such disputes, without receiving a satisfactory settlement. Pertinent correspondence evidencing such handling has been reproduced and is attached, identified as Brotherhood's Exhibit Nos. 1 through 8.
CARRIER'S STATEMENT OF FACTS: Claimants D. W. Pierce and C. Parent on the dates involved in this dispute held hourly rated positions of Signal Maintainer with headquarters at Wyandotte, Michigan and Detroit Tower, Detroit, Michigan, respectively, with assigned hours of 7:30 A. M. to 4:00 P. M., Monday through Friday. Their normal assigned duties included the construction and installation of crossover protection.
On the dates involved and during their regularly assigned hours, the Claimants were used outside their assigned territories to assist another Signal Maintainer on the latter's assigned territory with signal work in connection with the installation of crossovers by Track Department Employes for an industrial siding in the vicinity of Lonyo Road within the Detroit Terminal limits and within the limits of Claimants' seniority district. Claimants were compensated from the time they reported at their headquarters until the time they returned each date.
The subject claim was filed with the Carrier by the General Chairman's letter of February 4, 1969. The claim was denied and was then progressed to the Superintendent Labor Relations and Personnel, the highest officer of the Carrier designated to handle the claim on the property, who denied the claim in a letter dated April 8, 1969, a copy of which is attached as Carrier's Exhibit No. 1.
There is on file with your Board an Agreement effective March 1, 1951, between the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen and the Penn Central Transportation Company (formerly The New York Central Railroad Company, Lines West of Buffalo) governing the rules, rates of pay and working conditions of Claimants employe classification.
So far as the Carrier is able to anticipate the basis of this claim, the question to be decided by your Board is whether the Claimants are entitled to additional compensation account of being used off their assigned territory to perform signal work on another territory.
OPINION OF BOARD: Claimants hold positions as signal maintainers. Their respective bulletins contain a description of their assigned territories. On the dates in question, Claimants were assigned during their regular hours to assist another signal maintainer on signal work on the latter's assigned territory. There is no evidence that anyone was assigned to Claimants' territories during the time they were performing the work outside their territories.
Claimants contend that Carrier violated Rule 9 of the Agreement which provides:
Claimants argue that an assignment outside their bulletined territories amounts to a suspension of work within the meaning of Rule 9 and that such an assignment deprives other employes of overtime opportunities, We do not agree.
We are not persuaded that Rule 9 was intended to prohibit the assignment of employes outside their territories during their regular hours. In fact, other portions of the Agreement specifically provide for compensation and expenses on those occassions when employes are assigned outside their territories, thereby demonstrating the intent of the parties that Carrier may legitimately make such assignments. We are of the view instead that the proper application of Rule 9 was described by Referee Dorsey in Award 16611 wherein he held that the rule was designated to prohibit the suspension of work of an employe during his regular assigned hours for the purpose of evading the overtime penalties prescribed in the Forty Hour Week Agreement.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:
That the Carrier and the Employts 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