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: There is an agreement between the parties to this dispute bearing an effective date of July 1, 1942, Article VIII, Section 7, of which provides:
For ten years prior to January 14 1969 the position then occupied by Claimant W. H. Tucker at Depew New York had existed as that of a Leading Signal Maintainer which worked with an directed the work of a Signal Maintainer. Effective with the close of work that day, the Carrier discontinued that work force compliment and created a Signal Maintainer and Signal Helper force. The newly created force was paid at reduced rates even though it performed relatively the same class of work as the former force. The pur-
pose of the Leading Signal Maintainer's position and using in its place a position of Signal Maintainer was to reduce the rate of pay.
As evidenced by our attached exhibits Nos. 1 through 11, this dispute has been handled in the usual and proper manner on the property, up to and including the highest officer of the Carrier designated to handle such disputes, without settlement.
CARRIER'S STATEMENT OF FACTS: There is in effect on this property an agreement between Lehigh Valley Railroad Company and The Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen of America effective July 1, 1942, Revised September 1, 1949 which, by this mention, becomes part of this submission.
As of January 13, 1969, at Depew, N. Y., on this property, there were two signal department positions:
The Signal Maintainer above bid for and was assigned to a position of Signal Maintainer at Corfu, N. Y. The vacated position of Signal Maintainer at Depew was advertised but there were no bidders for the position primarily du to a shortage of qualified Signal Maintainers.
There being no signal maintainer to be supervised by claimant, the position of Leading Signal Maintainer was abolished with the close of business January 14, 1969 whereupon claimant exercised seniority to the open signal maintainer position at Depew.
There being no qualified available Signal Maintainer, Carrier employed a new hire as a Signal Helper to assist claimant Signal Maintainer.
Claimant made claim for the different in rate between that of Leading Signal Maintainer and Signal Maintainer.
Basis for the claim is alleged violation of Article III, Section 7 of the current Signalmen's Agreement in that, "Carrier abolished the Leading Signal Maintainer's position at Depew, N. Y., replacing it with a Signal Helper's position."
OPINION OF BOARD: On January 13, 1969, at Depew, New York, on this property, there were two Signal Department positions: Leading Signal Maintainer and Signal Maintainer. The former occupant of the Signal Maintainer's position at Depew successfully bid on a Signal Maintainer's position at Corfu, thereby leaving a vacancy at Depew. Carrier established a Signal Helper's position and advertised for bids on the vacated Signal Maintainer's position at Depew. There were no bidders. Thereafter, Carrier abolished the Leading Signal Maintainer's position at Depew (Claimant's former position) and Claimant bid on and was awarded the Signal Maintainer's position.
The Organization contends that Claimant has the same responsibility in his Signal Maintainer's position as he had when he was a Leading Maintainer and that Carrier, therefore, violated Article VIII, Section 7, of the current Signalmen's Agreement which provides that established positions shall not be discontinued and new ones created under a different title covering relatively the same class of work for the purpose of reducing rates of pay or evading the obligation of the rules in this Agreement. Carrier contends that a Leading Signal Maintainer's position requires supervisory duties; that the position of Claimant as Leading Signal Maintainer was no longer necessary at the time of the abolishment of Claimant's position for the reason that there were no longer any forces to be supervised; and that a Signal Maintainer's duties differ materially from the Leading Signal Maintainer's duties.
When Carrier abolished the Leading Maintainer's position, the Maintainer's position was not disturbed and Carrier established the Signal Helper's position. Because of restrictions of Classification Rules Article I, Section 6, 8 and 10 of the Agreement, a helper is precluded from performing relatively the same class of work as is performed by a Leading Maintainer. Therefore, there is no Breach of Article VIII, Section 7, of the Agreement and this Claim will be denied.
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;
This this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and