BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD SIGNALMEN
SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY
(Pacific Lines)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the Southern Pacific Transportation Company that:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Claimant A. E. Wicki is a Leading Signalman on Signal No. 7. At various times in June, 1969 (specific dates and hours listed in our Statement of Claim), Carrier's Assistant Signal Supervisor called Mr. J. A. Pacheco to perform overtime work at different locations. Mr. Pacheco is a Signalman on Gang No. 7, and has less seniority than Mr. Wicki in the seniority class that includes Signalmen and Leading Signalmen.
Under date of August 18, 1969 the Brotherhood's Local Chairman initiated a claim on behalf of Mr. Wicki for fourteen hours' overtime pay on the basis Carrier violated the last paragraph of Rule 13 of the Signalmen's Agreement, which reads: (the amount was later reduced to eleven hours and forty minutes.)
allegedly performed by Signalman Pacheco on June 22 and July 3, 1969. By letter dated September 17, 1969 (Carrier's Exhibit C), Petitioner's Local Chairman agreed to revise the claim to cover actual overtime worked by Signalman Pacheco on June 20, 22 and 23, 1969, and eliminated claim for date of July 3, 1969, since no overtime work was involved on that date.
By letter dated November 14, 1969 (Carrier's Exhibit D), Carrier's Division Superintendent denied the claim. By letter dated December 5, 1969 (Carrier's Exhibit E), Petitioner's Local Chairman gave notice that the claim would be appealed.
By letter dated December 19, 1969 (Carrier's Exhibit F), Petitioner's General Chairman appealed the claim to Carrier's Assistant Manager of Labor Relations, and by letter dated January 12, 1970 (Carrier's Exhibit G), the latter denied the claim. Copy of the General Chairman's reply to that letter, dated January 20, 1970 (Carrier's Exhibit H), is also attached.
OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant, a leading Signalman, contends that he should have been called for overtime work on the dates in question rather than the junior employe used, a Signalman, on Gang No. 7.
Claimant's position is that under the provisions of Rule 13 of the Agreement, he was entitled to have been called for said overtime work. The pertinent provision of said Rule 13 provides as follows:
Claimant argues that the word "class" as used in the aforesaid Rule 13 means "seniority class" and not "classification" as contended by Carrier.
Carrier has referred us to four previous Awards of this Board involving the same parties to this dispute, namely, Award Nos. 12936, 13262, 15151 and 18296, wherein it was held that a Leading Signalman is in the Leading Signalman's class, and not in the Signalman's class, and thus there was no obligation on Carrier's part to have called Claimant, a Leading Signalman, as he was in a different class.
We find said Awards controlling in this dispute. As was said in Award No. 18296:
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds: