Frederick R. Blackwell, Referee


          (Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Chicago and North Western Transportation ( Company


          STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brother

          hood of Railroad Signalmen on the Chicago and

          North Western Transportation Company that:


          (a) The Carrier violated and continues to violate the current Signalmen's Agreement, in particular Rule 76, when the Carrier abolished the Northwest Crew, and the rebulletined the 4 positions in the Central Crew #l to avoid evading application of Rule 9 (a) & (b) and Rule 18.


          (b) The Carrier now compensate the following employes of the Northwest Crew and the employes who were displaced because of the Carrier violation of said rules and compensate these employes under Rule 20 (a) for every working day from date of violation, same being Wednesday, October 18, 1971:


                  J. Foote, Frmn.; R. Fawn, Ldr. Sigma.; W. Ramberg, Sigma.; W. Roberts, Sigma.; P. Knaak, Sigma.; C. Ong, Sig. Mtnr.; M. Linstead, Sig. Mtar.; G. Hansen, Sig. Mtar. /Carrier's File: 79-8-827


          OPINION OF BOARD: On October 18, 1971, the Carrier abolished a sig

          nal gang consisting of a Foreman, a Leading Signal

          man, and two Signalmen, and it added four Signalmen to another gang.

          The Employees allege that such action violated the Agreement, particu

          larly Rule 76 which prohibits the abolishment of established posi

          tions and the creation of new positions under different titles

          covering relatively the same class of work, for the purpose of re

          ducing rates of pay or evading application of the rules.


          The dispute grew out of a signal repair project between Janesville, Wisconsin and Harvard, Illinois, to which two signal gangs in the Central Seniority district were assigned. One of the gangs, the "Central Crew", was headquartered in camp cars. The other, the "Northwest Crew", was headquartered at DeVal, near Des Plaines, Illinois, and was assigned to a designated territory, pursuant to Rule 9 of the Agreement. At the beginning of the work, the Carrier sent the Northwest Crew to the area and lodged the crew in a motel for two nights. The propriety of this action was questioned by the members of the Northwest Crew who preferred to return to their headquarters daily, and to have the g


v=si
                  Award Number 20355 Page 2

                  Docket Number SG-20197


headquarters. In contrast, the Carrier wanted the gang to work away from headquarters throughout the work week on full expenses. After unfruitful discussions of these differences by the parties, the Carrier abolished the Northwest Crew and bulletined four Signalmen positions to be added to the as expanded, then proceeded to work on the same project which had been begun by both the Central and Northwest Crews.

 The Employees emphasize, first, that the Carrier did not abolish the Northwest Crew until after the crew members had questioned the propriety of their being worked away from headquarters; and, second, that the new positions were established to perform the same work the Northwest Crew had been performing prior to its abolishment.

 Neither of these points are persuasive and we shall deny the claim. Two Signalmen positions in the Northwest Crew were abolished and four Signalmen positions were added to the Central Crew. The title, rates of pay, etc., of the two abolished Signalmen positions are identical to the newly e in the Central Crew; thus, two of the new signalmen positions in the Central Crew are cancelled out of the case altogether. This narrows the question to whether the two remaining Signalmen positions in the Central Crew were actually doing relatively the same class of work previously assigned to the Foreman and the Leading Signalmen in the Northwest Crew. This, of course, is a fact issue which the Employees must establish by probative evidence of record. However, the Employees have offered no evidence at all to prove this fact, and the Carrier has made no admission which serves in lieu of such evidence. The Employees' emphasis on the sameness of the work before and after the rearrangement has no relevance. The sameness of the work, on which we concur, in no way demonstrates that relatively the same class of work, as performed on a discontinued position, is now being performed on a newly created position with a different title. We shall deny the claim.

        FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:


        That the parties waived oral hearing;


That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employes the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;
                  Award Number 20355 Page 3

                  Docket Number SG-20197


That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herin; and
        The Agreement was not violated.


                  A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                      NATIONAL. RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                      By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 23rd day of August 1974.