(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of
 Railroad Signalman on the Chicago and North Western Transportation Company that:

 (a) On or about February 4, 1972, tie Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement, particularly Rule 76, when it abolished position 45-011, Signalman 20 D&F. Crew #2.

 (b) The Carrier now be required to compensate the position of Leading Signal Maintainer, Mason City, established just prior to the instant abolishment, on January 24, 1972, under the 20 D&F rates and rules from February 4, 1972. fEarier's File: 79-24-g

 OPINION OF BOARD: The instant claim a-ose from the abolishment of a
 monthly rated relief signal position, Position 45-011,
 Crew No. 2, on or about February 4, 1972. Such relief signal positions
 are compensated at a monthly rate determined pursuant to Rule 20(d) of
 the parties agreement, as amended by the Memorandum Agreement of
 January 14, 1972. Regularly assigned monthly rated signal positions are
 governed and compensated pursuant to Pule 59(b) of the controlling Agree
 ment. On January 24, 1972 prior to the abolishment of 45-011, Carrier
 created the position of Leading Signal Maintainer, Mason City, Position
 13-001, a regularly scheduled monthly rated position under Rule 59(b).
 Based upon the foregoing, Petitioner alleges that Carrier violated
 Rule 75 of the current Signalmen's Agreement.



Petitioner raises many arguments for the first time in its ex parts submission which accordingly are not considered herein. On the property, Petitioner contended the; Position 13-001 should be compensated under hale 20(d) rather than Rule ;9(b) because: "The Carrier has abolished the vacation and emergency relief position and has elected to assign the work to the newly established position, as no other relief is possib'=." Carefil analysis of thi relevant evidence compels us to conclud" chat th_S allegat=^n is n^t supported by the record.


The claim is premised for the most part upon the assumption by Petitioner that the occupant of Position 13-011 ineluctably must perform relief work associated with the 20(a) position. Hut the record shows that a 20(d) position was reestablished on April 24, 1972 as needed to relieve vacationing signalmen. To the extent that the Petitioner suggests that Rule 20(d), as amended by the Memorandum Agreement, requires Carrier to keep in continuous existence relief positicns wk ether needed or not, it is in e..--ror. See twatd 14738, 20342 and At:atd 3 3 of S.H.A. No. 371. Mm~eover, the reestablishment of the 20(d) position in April negatives thQ assumption, if ar endo it was valid initis11y, that the 59(b) position performed relatively the same class of work; and there is no other substantial probative evidence on this record that such relatively similar work was performed. Finally, the record doffs not show that the purpose of the abolishment was to reduce rates of pay. Indeed, Petitioner in its Rebuttal Statement declares "Position 13-001 . . . has a higher monthly rate than Position 45-011." Sce Award 13933.

 In all of the foregoing we are unable to find a violation of Rule 76 as alleged by Petitioner. 41e have no alternative but to deny the claim.



That the Carrier and the Eeployes 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



        Claim denied.


                          fiATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          BY Crder of Third Division


ALTK'T:
      -JefAe%ve ecret~


==`-=d at Chicrgo, Illinois, this 16th t of May 1975.