,:one T. Ritter, Referee


                  (Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
                (Norfolk and Western Railway Company (Lake Region)


      STATEM":T OF ri.AIM: ('71.:im of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:


      (1) "rye C::rrri,.r violated the Agrccment and the Railway Labor Act when it unilaterallv.;'"lished the position of crossin: ·aatchman at Coshocton, Ohio on February 26, 1`?70 and assined all crossing protection work at said crossing to transportnrion department arplov~s (System Pile H14-CSH-70-1).


      (2) The pcr~P ion of. crossing watchm,n at Coshocton, Ohio be reestablished and assi;::~c: i.o Mr. L. E. Sho tlur.


      OPTNTO". OF t_P1)_Ah_;`1: "rir,r to F,·.hruary 26, 1970, Claimant was the regularly

      .):.-i';ued C-ossin- Watchman at C.rnhridve Street, Coshocton, Ohio. Ills duties con,si.ted of fla;·^ing vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Carrier desired t City of Coshoctnn an,! t-om the Puhlic I'tilftir:^. CI.r~ii3sinn of Ohio. The City of Coshocton ;;ranted i'.. Carrier permission to remnvc the Crossing Watchman from said location "pr( vi,h·rl that Carrier will .Lop i.tc trains prior to entering the right-of-wav ~·rr Ciml.rid;c :;oad and will fan^, traff Road." The P;,blic ftilitic:; Corinission authorize(! the proposed change in crossing protocticn at C..-.^4rid;:e Street and in its crricr stinulated that "in lieu of said prot2cticn, .said railway be, and is hereby directed to step its trains prior to cnterin; the tight-of-way at said crossing and to provide that train personnel will fl,g vehicular and pedestrian traffic at said Cambridge Street crossing." Tlirrcafter. and in a letter dated February 18, 1970, Carrier advised Clairant tha the position as hro,rin; %latchr·,an, Coshocton, is hcrchy abolished, and l'arrier instructed tr::in crews to flag their own movements over the involved streets and bridge. The Orgnni;:=tion contends that Rules 1,15 nn-I 25 of the Current Agreement confer the in·`lvod work on employes c;)vered by the Maintenan:e of Way Agreement. Also, the Organization contends that the irvolved work was negotiated and that the C.orri2r can not abolish this pn::ition and assign the work thereof to cmplov,:< of a-iother craft. The Orl-aniz.ation also contends that Maintenance of Way cmpl we^ have performed the involved work for more than sixty years and that r;ie involved work belongs exclusively to Maintenance of Way employes. Carrier c,ntcnds that neither the Scope Rule nor any other rule of the Agrecm-nt makcs Cie work of protecting movcmnnrs over crossings exclusively that of emnlrw^: system wide basis, Carri.,·r has in the past abolished Crossing Watchmen positions and has os


I
                    Award Number 19506 Page 2

                    Docket Number M1J-19517


The .allegation by the Organization that the involved position was negotiated into the Agr^enent has no merit. This allegation was based upon the fact that the position is specifically listed within the Wage Schedule. Article II (b) of Mediation Agreement Case No. A-5987 made October 7, 1959, is as follows:

              "(b) The listing of rates of pay in the Agreement does not constitute a i·unrantce of the conti -~:Mncc of .any position '··&midd


Also, the Or=i7.ation has failed in their burden of proof that protecting crossin'gs on ·;ii~ property has been performed exclusively by Maintenance of Nay c;:plovcc :. To the contrary, the rccorc' is abundant with proof that train crews have ;rotccted movements over crosrirgo where crossing watchmen positions c: Agreement cnn we find a^: provisions requiring any specific crossings to be protected by a flar;·'i·in , - c stahlishing any criteria for cca:tblishing which crossings should be pr,·t,ctcd lay what craft.

 Also, in thi:< :ispute, there has be,-.n no mono-ry claim made. There has only h.cn a rc~q'W>a . ·r rc::toration of a position, :'liis Board has no authority to rcst,,r,. ;-. i( Luiis,

        For the f~·rc;;~in,; reasons, this claim will ht: denied,


        FINDI:iCS: The Third '.)ivi ion of the Adjustment !'·oard, upon the whole record a all the evi_'c^.c,·, finds and holds:


        That the parri,n waived oral hearing


That the Carri·_r and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectivelv Carrier mid !::-.ployes within the meaning of. the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1)3:;

 That this hivt.ion of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein: and

        That the Aerc,-,nt was not violated.


                      A W A R D


        Claim denied.


            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

            By Order of Third Division

            i'

ATTEST: (0
        Lv~ s~/·f.

        l?y_~

        Executive ~ erarv_


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