(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISIi_'TF:


STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of
Railroad Signalmen on the Louisville and Nashville Reilrcad Company:

For thr^e (?) hours end thirty (30) minutes at overtime rate in favor of C. F. Fnill;,s for not bcina u.,nd in accordance with Rule 17(d). farrier's File: r-Z::~-?

OPINION OF POARD: Claimant vas assigned to SiEnal Gnnr, Pie,. 14 His a Signalman
on .^.e-±=rb?r '? and Sentcmbcr 1^, ic6o. On September 9 three
hours ef overtime wor:,·as required by two memb·:rs cf thin ;;-nr end on
September 10 th?rt·r .-:nutcs of Dve.rti!-,e was required S.· two m=nbers of the gang. On both days the ocerti,-a work consisted cf bondinq rail and on both occasions
Carrier used n GiEna-:::n, senior to Clair·.ant, and tin n..^iaistant signalman to do
the work.

Petiticner rr^up; ';hat Claimant should have been used to perform the overtime work invc7.:ec~ teceu:;e he was senior to th^ ^ssistant sicnalman used and because the class of war: invnivcd (bond'.:_,· r^il.) was g^nerally recognized as belonging to employees holdtniz the claGsific~ticn of Signalman.

The Carrier st-tes that the overtime work in jupstion required the services of ^. Si~nL.^.-n -nd -,n Assistant Si;71clmnn; Cirrier a.-roes that the work of bonding rail telon-s to Si^nnlm,-.n but states that in this instance, only one Signalman o-:as req,ured.

The pertir.cnt rules relating to Assistant Signalman and Overtime are as follows:













Under Rule 31 (c) Signalmen are placed in Seniority Class 5 while Assistant Signalmen are placed in class 6.

The Crr-_ni^ation seems to be con-erred that nn assistant Signalman performed Sign1a.:r's work: we find no evidence in the record to support this contention. Further, :·~ ,°·~a. no sunnort r.n either the record or the rules that two ci^r.^.lman ~:e^^ rer:ircd to ^r:rfcrT. 'he overtirp work in question. Carrier used two emnic-reel in two difforencc c1-::;,^,ce, Meth in accordrnce with Rule 17 (d) and Rule 8.

It is well .-..tiled that canayernnt has the rirht to determine how, when and where wor'.c : n,11 be -erfor-_d ^s ,hell --.. the r:.:~.'·cr of emnloyes required to acco=lic:r tic :.ssirnrent: !.his r?!;ht is only linited by specific provisions in the Aer^=cnt with the Or_-ni7^1:icn. In this c^se the Carrier made the d^_tcrninn.tica ".-.t two Si~nal:=^n r:crc r.--t rezi.ir=_d for the overtime in questicn.

In a. clo set-..- --r^'~cl. crse, Avard ho. 176,5, ·-e fcund that Carrier did :rot vici^.te the cr,-.tr=c'; when he u:ed rn !.e sirt·rt Si~Tnal 1'»intainer and a Si,rnal .4^int~-per _-r r:-r':.=i.in n-.·ertin=_ wcr,- rrt'::er then t;r0 ;~i_nal Maintainers. We ch°.il hc1d siMilnrly in thin ca.s^_.





Th!.t the ':-.rr'_~r nd `,.e^_ Lm-~lcyes involved in this^. dispute are respectively Carrier ·rri E^-loyer within the r:e_ainz of the Rnllway Labor Act, as ap-r~vF·d June -1, 1^°IS;

That this Livisicn of the Adustn<nt Bcard has jurisdiction over the dispute invclved h^-weir; and





        Claim denied.

                    Award Number 19596 Page 3

                    Docket Number SG-19478


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT HOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chica,,o, Illinois, this 14th day of February 1973.