(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (The Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company
 ( (P.M. District)

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood of Rail
 road Signalmen on the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company
 (Pere Marquette District):

 a) Carrier violated and continues to violate the current Signalmen's Agreement, particularly Rules 1 when on January 7, 1974 Supt. Signals A. C. Trimble and on January 15, 1974 each of you arbitrarily issued bulletins that resulted in changes on the Saginaw, Detroit and Grand Rapids seniority districts in violation of said agreement and its intent.

 b) Carrier now allow each employe affected by such action cited in part (a) above one (1) hour at his respective pro rata rate of pay in effect on January 25, 1974, in addition to pay already allowed, for each day such violation cited in parts (a) and (c) continues.

 c) Carrier further be required to recant its Bulletin Nos. SSS-174 through SSS-4-74, its Saginaw Bul its Detroit Bulletin No. D-1 dated January 15, 1974, its Grand Rapids Bulletin No. GR-1-74 dated January 15, 1974, and negotiate with the Brotherhood whatever changes it desires a
d) Inasmuch as this is a continuing violation said claim to be retroactive to the date such changes took place and to continue until such time as Carrier takes necessary corrective action to comply with violations cited in parts (a) and (c) above.

OPINION OF BOARD: Prior to November 13, 1972, the Carrier's Saginaw Signal
 Shop consisted of a Leading Signalman and three (3)
 Signalmen. On that date, the General Chairman Parker of the Brotherhood was
 informed that the Carrier was going to make changes in that force and there
 after, discussions were held between them. In January 1974, the Carrier
 implemented this reorganization through bulletins which resulted in the
 following: the Leading Signalman's position was abolished and was replaced
 with a Foreman. Three additional positions were added to the Saginaw Signal


















^__ agreement does circumscribe_them_ they_may be exercised only in accordance







      in violation of the agreement. Putting aside for the moment the rules relating to the form and content of the job bulletins (Rules 505, 506 and 601) we will consider the other rules. Rule 1 is a scope rile and the violation alleged here is not clear. Rule 304 requires that Assistant Signalmen must be placed in positions where they will have an opportunity to avail themselves of necessary training and experience to qualify them for journeyman's positions and are subject to transfer only "by special written agreement between the General Chairman and the management." If the total effect of the Carrier's actions are viewed as a transfer of Assistants to the Saginaw Signal Shop, the argument would have merit. But the actions here involved the abolition of certain jobs in various locations and creation of new jobs at the Saginaw Signal Shop. It follows that Rule 304 cannot prevent that action. An Assistant cannot claim immunity from job abolishment be


      Rule 701 deals with pay and based upon the record here, the violation is not apparent. The Brotherhood's argot is clarified when we consider its argument with respect to Rule 908, which provides:


            "Established positions shall not be discontinued and new ones created under a different title covering relatively the same class of work for the purpose of reducing the rate of pay ...."


      Here the'spotlight is placed on a specific employe, Lead Signalman Peabody. The claim is made that his position was abolished yet he still performs "relatively the same class of work" at the Signalman's hourly rate while he had performed the same work prior to the change at the monthly rate due a Leading Signalman.


            We do not see it this way. The facts are that Peabody received

_ the higher monthly rate because he was a Leading Signalman whose responsi-
      bilities included supervision of three (3) men. When the Saginaw Signal

      Shop was expanded, the rules required that Supervision be placed in a fore

      man. See Rules 101, 103, 601 and 701. It happens that Peabody could not

      qualify as a foreman and he had to be dropped back to the hourly paid

      classification of Signalman. Under these circumstances, we do not believa_

--_Rule._908 was violated.

      Lastly, it is claimed by the Brotherhood that Carrier violated Rules 505(c), 505 and 601(b) in that its bulletins were improper in that they did not follow the required form in various respects. Carrier concedes the bulletins did not follow "a verbatim replica of the form set forth in the Agreement, they yet are synonymous to some in both wording and form ...." When we look to Rule 505 (c) it speaks in the imperative and provides in pertinent part "Bulletins -

                    Award Number 21516 Page 4

                    Docket Number SG-21188


in Rule 506 ..." (emphasis added). The problem here is that the parties are at issue concerning an alleged verbal agreement concerning interpretation changes in the form of property. See Brotherhood Exhibit No. 15, Letter from General Chairman Parker to Mr. L. W. Burks, Director of Labor Relations for the Carrier, dated July 9, 1974. Based upon this record, we cannot accept the assertions of either side and reach a conclusion concerning the alleged verbal agreement. This Board is left wi
The argument is made that these rules are violated because: (1) the Bulletins for the new positions do not state that such positions are advertised ....r"in accordance with the signal department employes' agreement"; (2) the home station periods assigned are allegedly not shown; (4) the rest days are listed as "Regular Days off Duty"; (5) a brief description of duties was added to the bulletins; and (6) the Assistant Signalman position is not a "new" position.

 Clearly, the carrier did not follow the, prescribed form and a comparison with the rule requirem listing of the "home station," the "Established Meal Period" and "the rest days." We do not ignore the fact the carrier added a brief description of duties not required by the rules. Carrier argues that the form used "are synonymous" and, in effect, there is no prejudice by the changes made. This may be true as to the "home station" and "the rest days." We do not believe, however, that a reference to "one half hour lunch period" is a synonym for an "Established Meal Period." The difference between these two concepts could be significant. As we see it a "one half hour lunch period" could be a floating lunch break and that appears to be inconsistent with the rule requirement. On this basis alone we conclude the carrier violated the rules of the agreement with respect to the required job bulletin form. The question of relief remains for determination.

 Under part (b) of the claim, the Brotherhood proposes an allowance of one hour at the pro rata rate. This contemplates a penalty and we conclude there is no basis for this in the agreement. Moreover, that part of the claim that seeks a recant of the bulletins and, presumably, a restoration of the positions abolished has no basis in the rules here and must be denied.

 As we pointed out earlier, this claim seeks an allowance for "each employe affected by such action" and such unnamed claimants would have standing if they are readily identifiable. As we view this record, more information would be require merits as to employes affected by this violation. Award 21135 (Sickles).
                    Award Number 21516 Page 5

                    Docket Number SG-21188


Those asserting the claim must show more than a rule violation to establish their right to a monetary award. The burden of proof rests with them to show damages to a claimant who is named or readily identifiable. That burden has not be award must be denied,

        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

 The Agreement was violated in part as indicated in the Opinion of the Board.

                      A W A R D


(a) Claim is denied except for violations of Rules 505, 506 and 4 601 and with respect to these rules the claim is sustained.

        (b) Claim is denied.


        (c) Claim is denied.


        (d) Claim is denied.


NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD ATTEST: J9& &49=- By Order of Third Division

        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 29th day of April 1977.