BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD SIGNALMEN
ATLANTA AND WEST POINT RAIL ROAD COMPANY
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the Atlanta and West Point Rail Road Company - The Western Railway of Alabama that:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: The instant dispute arose because the Carrier required the successful applicant (Claimant) of the position advertised by Bulletin No. 185 to use his privato automobile as a requirement of the position of Signal Inspector, and allowed him only 9¢ per mile instead of that charged by Mr. Troy Collins.
On May 30, 1969, Carrier issued Bulletin No. 185 advertising for bids until June 9, 1969, the position of Signal Inspector with headquarbsrs at Atlanta, Georgia. The bulletin further outlined the limits of the assigned territory, and the rest days.
The General Chairman immediately took exception to the stipulation on the bulletin that no company vehicle would be furnished and that use of the successful applicant's personal vehicle would be reimbursed at 90 per mile -
rier to handle such disputes (Carrier Exhibits I, J, K and L), and the claim was declined in each instance. Effective September 1, 1970, MT. J. E. Channell became General Chairman, and on the 28th he wrote for a conference date to discuss the Collins claim. Conference was held on November 13, 1970, and the Carrier wrote the Organization thereafter as sat forth in Carrier Exhibit lbi. Carrier was advised that the file was bing turned over to Grand Lodge for further handling as a potential Board case, and on February 2, 1971, received copy of letter dat.cd January 29, 1371, from Mr. C. J. Chamberlain, President, Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen, to former Executive Secretary Schulty, Third Division, National Railroad Adjustment Board, of inWntion to file an ex pane submission covering the dispute which is now before this honorable Board.
Air. Chamberlain, in his letter of January 29, 1971, refers to "an unadjusted dispute between our organization and the Atlanta and West Point Rail Road Company-The Wcstcrn Railway of Alabama"; therefore, those lines are shown in this submission as partias to the dispute. Georgia Railroad, nometheless, is also a party to the dispute. It will be noted from Carrier Exhibit A that the bulletin was issued in the name of A&WP-WofA-GaRR and that the signal inspector's assigned ter7itory, with home station at Atlanta, Georgia, is "Main Lines, Montgomery to Augusta, and all brance lines." While Atlanta and West Point Rail Road Company, The Western Railway of Alabama and Georgia Railroad are separate entities, and there is currently in effect a schedule agreement batwcen A&4',-P-WofA and employes thereof in the Signal, Telegraph Department represented by Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen of America (now Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen) and a schedule agreement between Georgia Railroad and its employes in the Signal, Telephone and Telegraph Department represented by the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen of America (now Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen), both effective Septemhar 1, 1946 (copies of which are on file with the Third Division, National Railroad Adjustment Board), these lines are under a common management, the schedule agr: ements aforementioned are identical and provide, in Rule 40, that "Seniority rights of employes shall extend over the Atlanta and West Point Rail Road Company-The Railway of Alabama and the Georgia Railroad;" bulletins are issued in the name of A&WP-WofA-GaRR jointly; there is an unimpeded flow of signal forces interchangeably between A&WP-11'ofA-GaRR; too, consolidated seniority rosters are issued in line with sample on pages 29-30 of the schedule agreements, and the signal employ's. thereon are shown in order of rank, by seniority and class, with no regard whatever to the particular road on which they are working.
OPINION OF BOARD: On allay 30, 1969 the Carrier issued Bulletin No. 185, advertising a position of Signal Insp·actor headquartered at Atlanta, Ga. Since there was no company vehicle then on hand for the use of that position, the Carrier, in a note on the bulletin, committed itself to pay the successful applicant for the advertised position at the rate of 9¢ per mile for using his personal automobile instead. The employes request that Claimant be allowed the additional sums necessary to effectively pay him 12¢ per mile and :p12 per day for such use of his automobile.
We find no Agreement provision providing for the sums claimed; thus, to allow them would b: tantamount to agreement writing by way of an