STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: There is an agreement in effect between the parties to this dispute bearing an effective date of February 16, 1949, revised to include supplements and revisions to February 1, 1967, which, as amended, and by reference thereto, is made a part of the record in this dispute.
Claimant P. E. Shake is a Signal Maintainer subject to call under Rule 18 (a), which reads:
On September 10, 1968, at 3:32 A. M., highway crossing protection signals at Buck Creek crossing, on Claimant's territory, were reported out of order by the crew of Train #742. Even though Signal Maintainer Shake was holding himself subject to call under Rule 18(a), Carrier did not call him; it did not notify him to correct this signal trouble until he reported for regular tour of duty at 7:00 A. M.
Under date of September 26, 1968, the Brotherhood's Local Chairman filed a claim on behalf of Mr. Shake for 3 hours and 28 minutes overtime
pay on the basis he should have been called at the time the signal trouble was reported, and that Carrier's failure and/or refusal to do so constituted a violation of Rule 18(a). The claim was subsequently handled to a conclusion on the property, up to and including conference discussion with the highest officer of the Carrier designated to handle such disputes, without receiving satisfactory settlement. Pertinent exchange of correspondence on the property is attached hereto as Brotherhood's Exhibit Nos. 1 through 8, with No. 1 being the Local Chairman's initial claim cited above.
CARRIER'S STATEMENT OF FACTS: The rail at the Buck Creek Crossing on the MH&E Branch of the Evansville Division had run and pulled the track wire tight between the rail and the tie plate. The trains that passed over the joint then mashed the wire and eventually the wire was cut in two and caused the crossing signal to be inoperative.
The signal was reported inoperative at 3:32 A. M. on September 10, 1968, by the Crew of the last train which would be going over this crossing until 9:15 A. M. that date. The claimant in this dispute came on duty at 7:00 A. M. this date and corrected the trouble before 9:15 A. M., the scheduled time of the next train over the crossing.
It was the decision of Carrier that the time span of two (2) hours and fifteen (15) minutes would be more than ample time for the claimant in this dispute, Mr. Shake, to travel the required twenty (20) miles and make necessary repairs to provide proper protection for highway traffic before the next scheduled train of 9:15 A. M. would pass over this crossing.
As a result of the Carrier not calling the claimant, the organization presented a claim for three (3) hours and twenty-eight (28) minutes at overtime rate. Carrier saw no basis for the claim, and it was, therefore, declined. Copies of correspondence exchanged in connection with the claim are attached and identified as Carrier's Exhibits "AA" through "HH".
There is on file with the Third Division a copy of the current working rules agreement, and it by reference is made a part of this submission.
OPINION OF BOARD: The Brotherhood claims that Carrier was required, by Rule 18(a) of the Agreement, to call Signal Maintainer Shake when signal trouble was reported on his territory at 3:32 A. M. on the claim date. Instead Carrier waited until Signal Maintainer Shake reported on his regular turn and had him make the necessary repairs during that turn.
The Board finds that the following language from Award No. 11994 (Sell) may be applied to this case.