(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE:


STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of
Railroad Signalmen on the Union Pacific Railroad Company that:

A. The Union Pacific Railroad Company violates the current Signalmen's Agreement, effective Apri Section (f) and the "NOTE" thereunder, when it assigns Signal Inspectors W. L. Jones and R. C. Youngren to perform their routine and principal duties of inspecting and testing signal appliances, apparatus, circuits and appurtenances on Saturdays, the sixth (6th) day of their work week, and then declines and refuses to compensate them at their respective time and one-half rate of pay for service rendered on these days.

B(1). Claim is therefore submitted that the Union Pacific Railroad Company is now, and shall be, W. L. Jones and R. C. Youngren, in addition to their regular monthly rate of pay, at their time and one-half rate of pay for eight (8) hours each on Saturday, March 20, 1971, and Saturday, March 27, 1971, days which they would not have normally worked, for services rendered in the performance of their routine and principal duties of inspecting and testing signal appliances, apparatus, circuits, and appurtenances.

B(2). Under the provisions of Rule 41. Time Limits-Claims or Grievances, Section (d), of the current Signalmen's Agreement, effective April 1, 1962, this claim shall be considered as a continuing claim and shall be effective for each and every Saturday subsequent to March 27, 1971 that the conditions as stated in Sections A and B(1) above are allowed to continue by the Union Pacific Railroad Company.

OPINION OF BOARD: The Claimants in this dispute are monthly rated Signal
Inspectors whose overtime pay is governed by Agreement Rule 10 which reads in pertinent part:

















On Saturdays, March 20 and 27, 1971, the sixth day of their work weeks, the Claimants were required to perform their regular Inspector's duties in order to bring the Carrier's inspections of its signal system into compliance with Department of Transportation requirements. The Claimants contend that they shou that service, in addition to their basic monthly rate.

Agreement Rule 10 (f) eliminates monthly rated positions from the provisions of requiring payment of overtime except on the employes' rest day, here Sunday. :lone of the work in dispute is alleged to have been performed on a Sunday; hence,
The Employes also rely on the provision in the NOTE to Rule 10 that "Conditions heretofore applicable to such employes on Sunday shall hereafter apply on the sixth day of the work week." It is alleged that in the past overtime rate has been paid for Sunday work. That position is challenged by the Carrier, and there is no evidence in the record before us to support the allegation, nor does the Agreement show what those conditions were. Hence, we must hold that the Employes have not sustained their burden of proof, and we must dismiss the claim.





That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;



That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and








                        By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: I II
Executive Secretary

Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 8th day of November 1974.