(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (


STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claims of the System Committee of the Brotherhood of
 Railroad Signalmen on the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company (Chesapeake District) . Claim No. 1
a) Carrier violated and continues to.violate the current Signalmen's Agreement, particularly Rules 22, 50, 51, 68 and past practice, when on February 9, 1973 it issued job Bulletins deleting any and all reference to (1) "Holidays" as being "Regular Days off Duty" for hourly rated employes; (2) "Saturdays" and "H for monthly rated employes, a practice in effect since 1949 - date of 40-hour week agreement; and

 b) Carrier further violated said Agreement, including past practice, when it arbitrarily started February 9, 1973 bulletining positions of sign#l maintainer with "Assigned Territory" as the complete seniority district; and as a result,

 c) Carrier now pay each Employe carried on its affected seniority district roster of 1973, one (1) hour at the Employe's time and one-half rate of pay for the position held on March 1, 1973, in addition to his regular earnings, for each work day violation cited in parts (a) and (b) continues. Bulletins involved are Hocking Signal SD-73-1 through SD-73-16 dated February 9, 1973.

 d) Inasmuch as this is a continuing violation, said claim to apply to all future job bulletins issued after February 24, 1973, and until such time as Carrier takes necessary corrective action to comply with violations cited in parts (a) and (b).

Claim No. 2
a) Carrier violated and continues to violate the current Signalmen's Agreement, particularly Rules 22, 33, 50, 51 and 68 - including past practice, when on February 12, 1973 it issued Job Bulletins that deleted any and all reference to (1) "Holidays" as being "Regular Days off Duty" for hourly rated employes; (2) "Saturdays and Holidays" as being "Regular Days off Duty" for monthly rated employes, a practice in effect since 1949 - date of the 40-hour week agreement; and


b) Carrier further violated said Agreement, including past practice, when it arbitrarily started on February 12, 1973 bulletining positions of signal maintainer with "Assigned Territory" as the complete seniority district; as a result,

 c) Carrier now pay each Employe carried on its affected seniority district roster of 1973 one (1) hour at the Employes time and one-half rate of pay for the position held on March 1, 1973, in addition to his regular earnings, for each work day violation cited in parts (a) and (b) continues. Bulletins involved are Ashland Signal Nos. 11, 13 through 23 issued February 12, 1973,

 d) Inasmuch as this is a continuing violation, said claim to apply to all
 future Job Bulletins issued after February 24, 1973, and until such time as
 Carrier takes necessary corrective action to comply with violations cited
 in parts (a) and (b).
 (Carrier's File: SG-328; General Chairman's File: 730305-221)
 Claim No. 3
Subject to my letter of last June 28 addressed to you, please accept this at an appeal from the decision of division engineers named below, who have declined payment of the following claim, which is essentially the same claim filed with each division engineer except for bulletin numbers:

        Mr. W. M. Dowdy, Clifton Forge district, letter of April 30, 1973, file CF-SN-33, received May 4, 1973.


        Mr. W. M. Dowdy, Hinton district, letter of April 25, 1973, file HX-SN-1, received May 2,-1973.


        Mr. C. F. Ring, Cincinnati and Chicago districts, letter of April 24, 1973, file CD-SN-66.


        Mr. J. G. Smith, Huntington District, letter of April 23, 1973, file HU-SN-30.


        Mr. C. L. Hardy, Russell district, letter of April 23, 1973, file RU-SN-53.


a) Carrier violated and continues to violate the current Signalmen's Agreement, particularly Rules 22, 33, 41, 50, 51, 68 - including past practice and understanding had in conference, when on or about March 1, 1973 it refused to abolish and re-advertise all positions on seniority
                  Award Number 21266 Page 3

                Docket Number SG-21134


districts affected in the March 1, 1973 signal department reorganization, thereby not giving all Employes on said districts an opportunity to fully exercise their seniority; districts involved named below:

 b) Carrier further violated and continues to violate said agreement, particulary Rules cited above and past practice when on or about March 1, 1973, it arbitrarily assigned Maintenance Units with "assigned territory" bulletined as the complete seniority district. As a result;

 c) Carrier now pay each Employe carried on its affected seniority district roster of 1973 one (1) hour at the Employe's time and one-half rate of pay for the position held on March 1, 1973, such payment to be in addition to his regular earnings, for each work day violation cited in parts (a) and (b) continues.

 d) Inasmuch as this is a continuing violation, said claim to apply to all future Job Bulletins issued after February 24, 1973, and continue until such time as Carrier takes necessary corrective action to comply with vi4ations cited in parts (a) and (b):

        Clifton Forge district bulletins involved - SD-73-7, SD-i3-9, 11, 13, 15, 18, 19, 21 and 23;


        Hinton district bulletins involved - Nos . 1 through 5 dated February 9, 1973.


        Cincinnati district bulletins involved - Nos. G,61, 62, 81, 82, 84, 86, 88, 89 through G-93.


        Chicago district bulletins involved - Non. G-63, 75, 76 through G-79 and G-83.


        Huntington district bulletins involved r Nos. $D-73-2 through SD-73-6 sad SD-73-8 issued February 9, 1973. District bulletins involved - Nos. 1 through 3 dated February 9, 1973.


        (Carrier's File Nos. General Chairman's File Nos.

        SG-330 730224-89CF

        SG-331 730224-89HIN

        SG-332 730305-135

        SG-333 730305-136

        SG-334 730224-139)

                        Award Number 21266 Page 4

                        Docket Number SG-21134


        OPINION OF BOARD: The dispute herein concerns various aspects of bullet

        ining. It is noted that a portion of the conflict was

        resolved on the property, namely: that portion of the Claim relating to holi

        days and normal days off duty. Hence that aspect of the Claim will not be

        considered further.


        Petitioner also, in its submission, alleges that Carrier refused to show on job bulletins a fixed meal period as required by the rules. It is noted that this aspect of the Organization's position was not reflected in the Statement of Claim and may not be considered by the Board.


        There are two remaining major issues in this dispute. The first is the allegation that Carrier should have abolished and readvertised all the positions in view of the major organizational changes involved. Petitioner bases this Claim on a the discussions leading to the January 31, 1973 Memorandum of Agreement. Carrier denies the existence of such understanding. It is indeed unfortunate that the par Board has no way to resolve a factual dispute between the parties, such as that herein. It is well established that when Petitioner relies on evidence which is in conflict, the burden of proof has not been met (see Awards 19939, 20729, 20408, 19501 and many others).


', .. .. The second issue is the allegation by the Organization that Car-
        rier erred in making the Assigned Territory in the bulletins in question,

        the entire seniority district. We note that new Rule 43'k provides, in

        pertinent part:


              "(d) Normal working limits and headquarters point of Signal Maintenance Units will be shown on the bulletins advertising the positions on such Units. This will not, however, preclude a Maintenance Unit being used to perform work at any point on the seniority district."


        We find no rule support for Petitioner's position and no other evidence to indicate the intent of the parties when the new rule was agreed to. On its face Rule 4A certainly does not preclude referring to the entire seniority district as the territory in the bulletins, and we have no power to change or re-write the rules.


        It must be concluded that Petitioner has not met its burden of proof with respect to the allegations embodied in the Claims, and hence the claims must be dismissed.

                  Award Number 21266 Page 5

                  Docket Number SG-21134


          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;

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

          That the burden of proof was not met.


                        A W A R D


          Claim dismissed.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJU=MT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


' ATTEST:
 Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 15th day of October 1976.