NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOAR
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number SG-20450
Joseph A. Sickles, Referee
(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalman
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(The Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company
( (Chesapeake District)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood of
Railroad Signal-an on the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway
Company (Chesapeake District) that:
(a) Carrier violated and continues to violate the current Signalmen's Agreement, particularly Ru
1972 Lyle C. Clark, a qualified Signalman, was assigned Signalman's work
at Assistant Signalman's rate of pay.
(b) Carrier now pay Claimant Lyle C. Clark, C&O ID #2613340, the
difference in rate of pay received and the Signalman's rate of pay, for all
work assigned in violation of the Signalman's Agreement as cited in part
(a) of this claim.
(c) Inasmuch as this is a continuing violation, said claim to be
retroactive sixty (60) days from date of filing (June 6, 1972) and to continue until such time as Ca
with violation as cited in part (a). (Carrier's File: 1-SG-306; General
Chairman's File: 720606-128)
OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant was assigned as an Assistant Signalman on
August 3, 1970. On January 15, 1971, he was assigned
as a Signalman, and continued in that position until October 14, 1971 when
he was furloughed.
On April 3, 1972, Claimant was recalled as an Assistant Signalman.
The Organization asserts that Claimant should have been paid as a
Signalman from June 6, 1972 (date of claim) until July 14, 1972 (date Claimant was "promoted" to Sig
The Board feels that Claimant's work direction, under Rule 5(a)
controls this dispute:
Award Number 20604 Page 2
Docket Number SG-20450
"(a) Assistant Signalmen, Assistant Signal Maintainers: An employee in training for a position
of signalman or signal maintainer, working with
and under the direction of a signalman or signal
maintainer, shall be classified as an assistant
signalman or assistant signal maintainer.
Note. - Insertion of the word 'with'
in this paragraph is not intended to
restrict assistants from performing work
under the direction of a signalman or
signal maintainer. It is not intended
that the word 'with' means that assistants
must work within any specified zone or dis-
tance in performing the work under the di..
rection of a mechanic. Likewise, it is not
intended that assistants be sent 'out alone
and on their own responsibility to perform
bona fide mechanics work."'
We note a factual dispute, in this regard, between the parties,
But, in October, 1972, Claimant executed an affidavit stating that when
recalled on April 3, 1972, he was assigned to the same work and same duties
he had previously performed as a Signalman, and that he worked under the
same supervision of the Lead Signalman as he did prior to his furlough.
Carrier's denials of organization's position were generalized in nature
and did not present direct evidence to contradict the above mentioned
affidavit.
The Carrier has cited cases dealing with burden of proof. We
find that Carrier has failed to disturb the Organization's proof in this
case, and accordingly, we will sustain the claim from June 6, 1972 until
the date Claimant was promoted to Signalman.
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 within the meaning of the Railway Labor
Act, as approved June 21, 1934;
b~
Award Number 20604 Page 3
Docket Number SG-20450
That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction
over the dispute involved herein; and
That the Agreement was violated.
A W A R D
Claim sustained to the extent stated in the Opinion of the
Board.
NATIONAL RAIIYROAD ADJUSTMENT BOAR
By Order of Third Division
ATTEST: i 01
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 31st day of January 1975.
Y'AwwF,n! i