NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number SG-22306
(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Consolidated Rail Corporation
( (Former Penn Central Transportation Company)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood
of Railroad Signalmen on the former New York,
New Haven and Hartford Railroad Company:
On behalf of D. R. Tarasevich, Assistant Signal Maintainer,
account violation of Rule 53, as outlined in the initial claim letter
of February 14, 1976, to Division Engineer J. P. Fox."
LCase No. B.R.S. NH-31/
OPINION OF
BOARD: The Claimant held position of Assistant Signal,
Maintainer at South Bay, Massachusetts. The
Carrier advertised two (2) Signalmen positions on December 17, 1975
by Bulletin No. 46-75. The Claimant did not bid on either of the
positions and one position was awarded to a junior employe in the
Signalmen's class.
0
The Organization protested on the grounds that the Bullet-.'n, '~
was not posted at the headquarters point, South Bay, in accordance
with Rule 53, which reads, inter alia, as follows:
"Bulletins as referred to in Rule 52 shall be posted
at headquarters of the seniority district involved
for a period of ten days. Copies of bulletin notices
shall be sent to the Local Chairman. During such ten
days the employes may file their applications with
the official whose name appears on the bulletin."
(The Organization argues vehemently that Claimant should not
be prejudiced by loss of his seniority in the Signalmen's class for
failing to bid up, when Carrier failed to post the Bulletin as per
the Agreement.) Carrier argues with equal fervor that the Bulletin
was posted not only at South Bay but also at Readville, a contiguous
point, where Claimant, by his actions, demonstrated he read other
Award Number 22313 Page 2
Docket Number SG-22306
Bulletins and
made application for other positions posted at the same
time.
It is apparent from a studied consideration of this record,
that it would be impossible to decide which of the opposing asserted
facts are correct. However, we are convinced of the merits of the
Organization's argument that it would be palpably unfair to wrest
Claimant's Signalmen's seniority from him on the basis of such a
disputed factual showing. We are equally convinced it would not be
proper to award the compen ation requested, for the same reason.
` 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 claim be disposed of in accordance with the Opinion.
A W A R D
Claimant's seniority in the Signalmen's class is preserved,
but no compensation is allowed.
e,
N
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of.:Third Division _.
ATTEST: _.
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 22nd day of February
1979.