$8.94 $8.94 ~8.94 $8.94 $8.94 58.94 ;8.94 Y8.94 58.94 $8.94 S8.94 $8. 94 ;8.94 s8.94 $8.94 $8.94 X8.94 $8.94 $8.94

$8.94 $8.94 58.94 $8. 9. $8.94 $8.94 $8.94 X8.94 58.94 $8.94 $8.94 .8.94 38.94 $8. 94 -?O. 94 $8.94

Award _`,:mber 21912 Page 3

Docket _Tumber TD-21692

Compensation Claim Dates (AU

Claimed For multiple dates are

Claimant Each Claim Date Inclusive)

MI :,brch 29-30, 1975

. D. Rutsen

:8.94 April 5-6, 1975

T. bf. Gutterud $8.94 September 7-8, 1974

$8.94 September i4-15, 1974

88.94 September 21-22, 1974

$8.94 S=eptember 28-29, 1974

$8.94 larch 1-2, 1975

x8.94 Kar ch 8-9 1975

$8.94 March 23, 1975

J. i. Pogatshnik $8.94 December 14-15, 1974

$8.94 December 21-22, 1974

X8.94 December 28-29, 1974

A, G. Ton ey $8.94 April 12-13, 1975

58.94 April 19-20, 1975

$8,94 April 26-27, 1975

$8.94 bay 3-4, 1975

X8.94 _3ay 10-11, 1975

$8.94 May 17-18, 1975

$8.94 May 24-25, 1975

$8.94 May 31, 1975

D. .d. Jackson $8.94 hay 19-23, 1x75

(b) Because of said violations, the Carrier shall nor be required to compensate each of the above named Claimants the amounts indicated for each claim date therein.

OPrTICI OF BOA-RD: The Chief Train Disuatcher at Grand Forks. :1^rth
Dakota was promoted to Trainmaster effective
September 1, 1974. Carrier contends that concurrently the supervision
of the Grand Forks train dispatching office was assigned to the Chief
Train Dispatcher at .'.Linneapolis, '"tinresota arid the Grand Forks Chief
Train Dispatcher position was abolished. Petitioner does not agree and
contends contrp -
ril that the Chie~ 505iti~ was not abolished, yz was simply not f_'ied. Further Petitioner alleges that an Ass istanz Chie Disaatc^er roositic,^. ·.:as established scl-y to provide relief for tile Chief Praia Dispatcher position at Grand -orks.

Auard Noncer 21912 Page

Docket Number TD-21'692

The provisions of Article I Section (a) and (b) of the applicable Agreement relate to this dispute; they provide:

"ARTICLE

(a) SCOPE.

This agreement shall govern the hours of service and working conditions of train dispatchers.

The term 'train dispatcher' as herein used shall include all train dispatchers except one chief train dispatcher in each dispatching office who is not regularly assigned to a shift performing train dispatchers' work.

NOTE: A weekly rest day shall be assigned to each excepted chief train dispatcher position. as a part of the weekly schedule of work for any train dispatcher assignment.

?Relief of exceated chief train dispatchers for weir annual vacation., and other temporary periods of absence from their positions, shall be made by qualified train dispatchers from tPe office involved.

Any permanent appointment to the position of excepted chief train dispatcher shall be made from train dispatchers holding seniority as such, on the same seniority district.

(b) DEFINITION OF CHIEF AIM ASSISTANT CHIEF DISPATCHER POSITIONS.

Positions of chief and assistant chief train disaatchers shall include positions in ut ich the duties of incumbents are to be responsible for the :movement of trains or. a Division or other assigned territory, involving the supervision of train dispatchers and other similar employees; to supervise the handling of trains and t::e distribution of power and equipment incident thereto; and to perform related work

Award ?umber 21912 Page 5

Docket Number TD-21692

It is noted that the Chief Train Dispatcher is a supervisory excepted position under Rule 1(a). Also, pertinent is the idemoranduM Agreement dated January 20, 1971 which, inter aiia, provided for a rate applicable to an employe relieving the Chief Train Dispatcher.

The crux of this dispute is whether or not the emmployes involved did indeed perform the duties of the Chief Train Dispatcher for the dates enumerated. Petitioner alleges that the work of former Chief Train Dispatcher remained at Grand Fork Claimants herein. The only proof submitted by Petitioner was the assertion that the rest day schedul remained after his departure, and the Minneapolis Chief Train Dispatcher never appeared at Grand Forks.

Carrier argues that the Petitioner has failed to establish a basis for the Claim herein with proof. Carrier argues that Claimants carried out their normal functions as Assistant Chief Dispatchers and were not relieving the Chief Dispatcher on the claim dates. Carrier stated that it had the right to determine the extent and location of supervision and in this instance assigned supervision. of three dispatching offices (?inneapolis, Wi Dispatcher.

The record of this dispute reveals no evidence whatever to establish that the Claimant's duties on the dates enumerated encompassed the functions and responsibilities of the Chief Train Dispatcher. Notwithstanding the vigorous argum dispute is strikingly similar to that dealt with by this Board in Award 14835. In that Award we said:

"It has been well established by this Board that the Carrier has the right to abolish positions if the need for them has been eliminated. It has been held that supervision need not be exercised at the actual site of operations. (Award 12310 (Wolf) and 12415 (Coburn)).

The Organization has not met the burden of proving that the grievant had in fact performed Foreman's functions. The here relaying of instructions from an absent Foreman does not convert the conveyor of such instructions into a supervisor (Award 12350 (West)), nor does the keeping of work records of itself indicate the Claimant actually supervised the work of the other Water .Service techanics (Award 13765 (%reston)).

Award Number 2i 912 ?age o

Docket Nunber TD-210'92

Accordingly, we find that the Claim must be denied."

As in the Award cited above, there has been no evidence submitted by Petitioner to support its contentions in this dispute. Based on the entire record, therefore, this Claim rmst be denied.

IVDTNGS: 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 n^tployes 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; aad

That the Agreement was not violated. ., .
A 47 A R D VAR i 3 I%n

V
Claim denied. `J F2 EF2T P
~w

NATIONAL RAIL.?OAD ADoUSa:LFNT BOA=r

3y Order of Third Division

ATTEST:

Executive Secretary

Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day of r°-br,,lary 1978.