NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number SG-21357
Irwin M. Lieberman, Referee
(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of
Railroad.Signalmen on the Louisville and Nashville
Railroad Company:
On behalf of Signal Foreman H. B. Williams, Birmingham Division
Signal Gang #13, headquarters Boyles, Ala., for 8 hours and 30 minutes account
not called on Sunday, August 26, 1973, to direct the work of men assigned to
work under his direction. farrier's file: G-265-12)
OPINION OF BOARD: In this dispute it is alleged that the Agreement was
violated in that a signal foreman, Claimant herein, was
not called to work in connection with signal repairs on a Sunday. The work in
question was performed by two Signalmen from Claimant's regular gang working
in conjunction with Signal Maintenance forces, under the direction of an
Assistant Signal Supervisor. The work was caused by a derailment which
resulted in the destruction of certain signal equipment.
Carrier contends that the Assistant Supervisor was acting only in
a supervisory capacity, which was appropriate and that the work in question
was normally performed by signal maintainers without a foreman being present.
Petitioner states that one of the employes present indicated that he was
instructed to perform work by the Assistant Signal Supervisor; this was the
only evidence presented by Petitioner.
It is well settled that it is not a violation of an agreement for
a supervisor to instruct employes as to what work is to be performed. In
fact, it is the prerogative of Carrier to determine the amount of supervision
required for any work. As we said in Award 18580:
"It is well established by prior awards of this Board that
unless specifically provided in the Agreement, Carrier has
the sole and exclusive right to determine when and under
what circumstances a foreman is assigned to supervise a
group of employes .. . Nowhere does the Agreement
require the service of a foreman in all circumstances
...."
To prevail, the Organization has the burden of proving that the
Assistant Supervisor was de facto performing the duties of the Claimant's
position (Award No. 19864T Petitioner has not satisfied its burden of
proof and hence the Claim must be dismissed.
Award Number 21494 Page 2
Docket Number SG-21357
FINDINC-S: 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 Petitioner has not met its burden of proof.
A W A R D
Claim dismissed.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
ATTEST: i ~i9
ix/gJ
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 15th day of April 1977.
i
J