NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number SG-22248
(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Missouri Pacific Railroad Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood
of Railroad Signalmen on the Missouri Pacific
Railroad Company:
On behalf of Vincent Smith, Signal Maintainer, Pine Bluff,
Ark., for 2.7 hours' overtime removed from his time-roll first period
of March 1976 by Superintendent of Signals and Communications E. E.
Jamison, which had been placed on the time-roll for work on March 8,
1976 in connection with si~gaal trouble on another railroad (Cotton Belt)."
(Carrier file: R 225-710/
OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant, a Signal Maintainer, was called to
investigate signal trouble at a crossing in Pine
Bluff, Arkansas on March 8, 1976, and upon investigation he found the
trouble to be off his assigned territory, on the line of another carrier.
Claimant filed claim for 2.7 hours overtime, relying on
Rule 600(d) of the applicable Agreement, the pertinent provisions of
which read:
"Employes assigned to the maintenance of a territory
who are required by the Carrier to perform work outside the limits of their territor w
compensated on the mimite basis at one-half the straighttime hourly rate applicable to monthly rated
with a
mirimm
of two (2) hours when called outside
their assigned hours; ...." (underscoring added)
However, Carrier supervision removed the claimed 2.7 hours
from the claimant's time card, holding that when claimant determined
that the defective crossing protection devices were those of another
railroad and not those of Missouri Pacific, he was not required to
pursue the duties and responsibilities of another railroad.
Award Number 22163 Page 2
Docket Number SG-22248
Petitioner maintains that claimant was worked off his
assigned territory to perform a service for Carrier on the claim
date and claimant should be paid according to the terms of Agreement
Rules 600(d).
The issue before us is whether claimant was required to
perform work outside the limits of his assigned territory. If he were
directed to perform work for, or on behalf of, the foreign carrier,
claimant would have raised a valid claim. But this is not the case
here. The record discloses that claimant looked at the equipment
(crossing signal or flasher) of his own Carrier, Missouri Pacific,
but that he did not leave Missouri Pacific's tracks or right of way.
His work insofar as can be determined from the record before us, was
limited to ascertaining whether Missouri Pacific's crossing protection
devices were functioning; i.e., whether there was any signal trouble
on the Missouri Pacific. Having found that the problem was not on
the Missouri Pacific tracks, claimant so reported and went home.
On the basis of the evidence before us, we can only conclude that
claimant performed no work or service for another Carrier.
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
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
ATTEST: Iai
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 31st day of July
1978.