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

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System General Committee of the Brother
hood of Railroad Signalmen on the Chicago and North
Western Transportation Company that:

(a) On or about May 24, 1972, the Carrier violated the current Signalmen's agreement, particularly R also Circular Letter No. 1380, I.C.C. inspection rule page 76, when Carrier unilaterally assigned S&O Leader Signalman M. L. Elsberry to the temporarily vacant position of Signal Maintainer at Ames, Iowa.

ment when it unilaterally dent Signalmen's Agree-
ment assigned the above named "pending bulle-
tin", on Bulletin No. 12 dated June 20, 1972.


all time beginning May 24, 1972 at Rule 20(a) which applies to work off
his regular assignment under provisions of the Agreement.
. /Carrier's File: 79-3-107/

OPINION OF BOARD; The Signal Maintainer at Ames, Iowa was laid off be
cause of an eye injury. The Carrier assigned Leader
Signalman Elsberry, the Claimant, to work thAt position on a temporary
basis. When the Carrier learned that the injured Signal Maintainer
would be out for some time the Claimant was assigned to said position
"pending bulletin".

It is the position of the Orglnization that Rule 20 (a) of the agreement was violated when Claimant was first used temporarily on said position. It is further claimed that Rule 38 was violated when the Carrier failed to get the Agreement of the local Chairman before filling the vacancy pending bulletin.





























of the Carrier in assigning Claimant to work the Signal Maintainer
position at Ames, Iowa was a violation of Rule 20(a). It is incumbent
on the Organization to show that the Claimant falls under the language
of 20 (a) which qualifies those entitled to the punitive rate.



With regard to Rule 38, however, there is no question but that the Carrier was required to obtain the agreement of the local chairman prior to filling the vacancy pending bulletin. The Organization denies, as the Carrier has has refused to negotiate on these matters. In regard to the instant matter the record is clear that no effort whatsoever was made. This was violative of the agreement.

We will sustain the claim as to part B and allow an additional one-half day compensation to Clai June 20, 1972 to July 3, 1972.

        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;

That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; an
        That the agreement was violated.


                A W A R D


        Claim sustained in part in accordance with this opinion.


                        NATIONAL. RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                        By Order of Third Division

ATTEST: awf ~~I~ rQJ
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 7th day of March 1975.

l