(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of
 Railroad Signalmen on the Chicago and North Western Transportation Company:
(a) On or about October 13, 1972 the carrier violated the current Agreement between the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen and the Chicago and North Western Transportation Company, when the Signal Supr. returned the overtime slip of Mr. R. C. Hodge, Ldr. Signal Mtnr. at Lake Bluff, Illinois, for 2 hours and 40 min. dated Oct. 7, 1972 at the half time rate under rule 20(a).
 (b) Carrier now be required to allow Mr. Hodge this overtime as presented on form 1171. (Carrier

(a) On or about Sept. 27, 1972 the Carrier violated the current Agreement between the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen and the Chicago and North Western Transportation Company, when the Signal Supr. returned the overtime slips of Mr. J. D. Foote, signal Mtnr. at Glencoe, Illinois, for 2 hours and 40 min. dated Sept. 16, and the other one for 3 hra on Sept. 17, 1972 all at the half-time rate.
 (b) Carrier now be required to allow Mr. Foote this overtime as presented on Form 1171. (Carrier
OPINION OF BOARD: After thorough review of the entire record, we find no
 procedural violation which precludes our consideration and disposition of the matter based upon the merits of the claim.

 On or about September 5, 1972, two (2) separate, adjacent signal maintenance territories were combined.

 On September 16 and 17, 1972, F (headquartered in Glencoe) was required to clear signal trouble on the former Lake Bluff territory. On October 7, 1972, H (headquartered at Lake Bluff) was required to work in the former Glencoe territory. In both instances, the employees sought (and were denied) additional one-half (~) time under Rule 20(a):




There is no question that a cold reading of Rule 20(a) would deny additional compensation because neither Claimant was required to perform work outside of his territory. At the same time, there is little question that such an assignment, if made prior to the consolidation of territories, would have resulted in entitlement to the additional compensation.

 Unquestionably, the claims arose as a result of combining the formerly separate signal mainta a single territory without combining headquarters. Claimant a contend that " ..a territory with multiple headquarters is not within the agreement, nor has it been in the history on the property."

 Stated differently, the Organization concedes that territories may be combined, but such a combination - without a concurrent combination of headquarters - viol circumvention of the dictates of Rule 20(a).

 Clearly, Rule 20(a) does not proscribe the consolidation under review. We have thoroughly scrutinized the entire record and the rules cited therein, but we are unable to find any language which compels the conclusion sought by Claimants. While the Board is not unmindful of the Organization's argument concerning Rule 2, we cannot conclude that in and of itself it precludes the type of consolidation here in issue.

 Moreover, we have considered the Organization's assertion that the obvious reason for consolidation was to circumvent Rule 20(a) and to accomplish, by indirection, a r fails to present sufficient evidence to establish such a motive on the part of Carrier. We will dismiss the claim.

 I






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


        .iTTEST: ~~ ~.4"420 Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 29th day of August 1975.
          Dissent to Award 20796, Docket SG-20615

          Award 20797, Docket SG-20616

          Award 20802, Docket SG-20457

          Award 20811, Docket SG-20611


      The Majority in Awards 20796, 20797, 20802 and 20811 has erred.


The Parties' Agreement Rule 76 prohibits the execution by the Carrier of certain direct acts for the purpose of evh..ding its rules. We established many years ago that we would not condone a Carrier's acts to accomplish indirectly that which it is prohibited from accomplishing directly. 41e have also established that, when one knows the inevitable outcome of a conterplated act, he must be considered to have cormitted the act with that intent or purpose.

 The confronting records establish that the Carrier did accomplish indirectly that which is prohibited directly and that the Carrier mist have 1-.nown the invitable outcome of its act. In fact, we believe the record clearly shcws that such was the very reason for the Carrier engaging the "outside consulting firm"; certainly the reverse is not the case.

    Awards 20796, 20797, 20802 and 20811 are in error and I dissent.


                                  W. W. Altus, Jr.

                                  Labor Member