(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (The Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad Company

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood
of Railroad Signalmen on The Denver and Rio Grande
Western Railroad Company:

(a) The Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad Company violated their Agreement with the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen, particularly Rules 9, 11, 39, 61 and 69, by not assigning Signalmen to work on the signal gangs working on its property.


now pay the two (2) Assistant Signalmen with the most seniority on each
signal gang the difference between the compensation he received and the
compensation he would have received had he been receiving the rate of
Signalman. This claim is to commence for _a period of 60 days prior to
filing Linitial claim dated April 2, 197_4/ and to continue for the
period of the violation. In event of change of personnel, the claim is
for the successors of the present elder employees (Assistant Signalmen).



OPINION OF BOARD: Carrier asserts, at Page 11 of its Submission, that
a compromise settlement of this dispute was reached
on the property, and that the Organization could not - almost one month
later - unilaterally declare ". . .the offer is now withdrawn."

Our review of this record shows that after a considerable amount of handling of the case on the property, the parties reached agreement, in conference, on or about September 18, 1975. It was agreed that Carrier would place one (1) signalman on each of the gangs on the system. Carrier had complied with the settlement agreement concerning two (2) of the three (3) gangs, but prior to compliance on the third gang, the Carrier abolished same asserting that insufficient work existed for that gang.

Unquestionably, Carrier's action of abolishing the third gang could be questioned by submission of a claim pursuant to the procedures of the Railway Labor Act. But, that is not tantamount to stating that



Carrier's action was a proper basis for the Organization to declare that the settlement reached previously was thus invalidated. See, for example, Award 21011:



This dispute was settled by the parties in conference, and they agreed upon the appropriate application of the agreement in such areas as presented here. Inasmuch as the dispute was settled, we find no basis for imposition of monetary damages.





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 aver the dispute involved herein; and

That the parties reached agreement upon the appropriate disposition of the dispute prior to its submission here.

                    Docket Number SG-21576

                    A W A R D


Claim disposed of as noted in Opinion of Board, and Findings, above.

                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST; dw* oaazlew/

        Executive Secretary


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