NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number SG-21265
PARTIES TO DISPUTE: ( Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
(
( The Long Island Rail Road Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Railroad Signal
men on the Long Island Rail Road:
On behalf of R. J. Waidler, who was denied the occupancy of the
Signal Foreman position at Valley Tower when Mr. G. Gilmor was on vacation
April 15 to 27, 1974, (position was covered by J. Bryan and J. Gabrus, who
do not possess or enjoy any seniority in the Assistant Foreman or Foreman
class), the difference between his pro-rata rate and that of the Valley Tower
Signal Foreman position, and any overtime that was enjoyed by the aforementioned
Signalmen during the period (Carrier records will reflect this). Also, as a
result of Mr. Waidler covering positions of this type during Foreman vacations
in the past, the present seniority roster should reflect Mr. Waidler's Foreman seniority, including
fC-arrier's file: SG-9-7Fj'
OPINION OF BOARD: The crux of this case is Claimant's contention that Car
rier wrongfully failed to accord him a Foreman seniority
date prior to August 21, 1974 on which date he was assigned to a bulletined
Foreman position. Claimant asserts that as early as June 25, 1973 he was
entitled to a Foreman seniority date because he alleges he relieved Foremen
on and after that date at various times. Additionally he contends the Agree
ment was violated because other similarly situated employees were afforded
seniority dates earlier than his when they relieved Foremen positions. As
remedy for the alleged violation Claimant seeks a Foreman seniority date of
June 25, 1973 instead of August 21, 1974. Also Claimant demands compensation
in the amount of the difference between his pro-rata rate and that of the
Valley Tower Signal Foreman position for the period April 15 to 27, 1974.
Apparently the monetary claim is premised upon the assumption that "but for"
the alleged improper withholding of his Foreman seniority date he would have
covered that position while the incumbent was on vacation.
Award Number 21611
Docket Number SG-21265
Page 2
Close scrutiny of the controlling Agreement language, Rules
32 and 33 (13 and 10 in the new Agreement) together with the record
developed on the property shows that there is no merit in this claim.
The contract plainly and unambiguously provides that Group 1 Foreman
and Group 2 Assistant Foreman shall constitute separate seniority
classes. This clear delineation for seniority purposes is not altered
by the semantic or vernacular twist whereby Group (1) and (2) sometimes
are referred to as the "Foreman Class". Nor does the fact that Rule
33(10) permits an employe assigned to Group 1 to acquire seniority in
both Groups l and 2 assist Claimant herein because the dual seniority
accrual does not work the other way i.e. an employe assigned to Group 2
does not under the language of Rule 33(10) accrue seniority also in
Group 1.
The record shows indisputably that Claimant prior to August 21,
1974 occupied a bulletined position as "Assistant Foreman-Vacation Relief".
Claimant has no entitlement to Foreman's seniority on the basis of
holding this Group 2 position. Nor does the record contain any probative
evidence to support his claim on any other basis. We have no choice but
to deny the claim for failure to sustain the requisite burden of proof.
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 Agreement was not violated.
A W A R D ~ t
~.~ G 2 4 1977
Claim denied.
SE
l
ATTEST:
d-
/V
Executive Secretary
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 29th day of July 1977.