(Brotherhood-of Railroad Signalman PARTIES TO DISPUTE:


STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System·Committee-of the Brotherhood
of Railroad Signalmen on the Chicago and North Western Transportation company that:









OPINION OF BOARD: On claim date, Claimant J. F. Rairdin was the
leading Signal Maintainer in a road assignment compen
sated at a monthly rate and headquartered at Mason City, Iowa. Pursuant
to a "Characteristic Notice" dated, January 24, 1972 Carrier consoli
dated several prior existing signal mintenance.territories into one
territory staffed, in addition to Claimant as Leader, by a Signal Main
tainer at each of four haadquarters=locationa in the new territory viz,
Eagle Grove; Gawrie,-Hampton, and Mason City. In a letter accompanying
the Characteristic Notice. Carrier-informed each of the four Signal
Maintainers an follow:



subsequent to the coosolidatioa, as February 29, 1972 ore Dk 9. Williass, Signal llaintaiaer was used to perform overtime work at Steamboat Hock, 1oma-from s:4s P.Ma·to 9:45 P.ri. WllIusvwas one of the 8igoR1.MYiatatmss Under- tbs;diayctios of C1sIssat and was head-



quartered at Mason City. The Organization, on behalf of Claimant, maintains that Carrier violated the controlling Agreement when the Leader Signal Maintainer was not given the prerogative to answer the call rather than the Signal Maintainer.

The.. Organizatiog.aontanda at the outset that because of insufficiency of Carrier's denial on the property the claim is payable under the Time Limit on Claims Rule of the 1954 National Agreement. We have reviewed the facts on this point and the myriad of cases cited relating thereto. In the circums such-pzooadural mishandling as to invalidate-resolution of the merits. For similar reasons, ve.reject Carriers motion that the claim be dismissed for alleged procedural irregularity regarding specificity of the date on which the violation occurred. The alleged procedural violations cited by each party are arguable at best, neither was prejudiced thereby in either efforts at settlement-os-seswst.ta asbiseat-ion. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by either of the procedural arguments to divert our attention from the merits of this dispute.

The Organization cites several sections of the current Signalman's Agreement but relies on the main upon the express language of a Memorandum of Understanding dated January 16, 1941 which reads as follows:









Carrier for the most part bases. its position on a denial of the relevance and applicability-of-the- connection Carrier asserts that the Memo was negotiated to cover a



specific set of circumstances existing in 1941 at Mason City and that, upon a change of those circumstances the Memo and its contractual obligation thereunder did in effec out that when drafted the Memo. applied to a maintenance territory of some 300 miles, whereas after the 1972 consolidation of territory the Mason City combined territory is some 1400 miles in extent.

We have reviewed carefully the facts and the Agreement language cited. Based upon this analysis we are compelled to a conclusion that the clear language of the Memorandum of January 16, 1941 was violated when the Leader Signal Maintainer was not accorded the preogative to answer the overtime call on February 29, 1972. The Agreement language therein says he has the "prerogative to answer my calls on the territory. The territory has been redefined by Carriarse Characteristic Notice of January 24, 1972 but such unilateral exercise of a management prerogative may not obviate the clearly articulated and mutually established prerogative of the employerherein. While adherence to such a contractual requir quadrupling of the size of the territory it may not be obviated thereby. This Board will not so ligh seeking relief from Agreement provisions made onerous by changing circumstances is the negotiating table and not the arbitration tribunal.







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

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










ATTEST:
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinoisf this 29th day of August 1975.