NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number SG-22482
(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Illinois Central Gulf Railroad
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the General Committee of the Brother
hood of Railroad Signalmen on the Illinois
Central Gulf Railroad:
On behalf of Assistant Signalmen J. H. Bonner, Employe
No.
43932 and G. D. Davis, Employe
No.
43734, for all time lost as
the result of being removed from service account of failure to pass
a written examination on March 28, 1977. Claimant Davis was
removed from service March 28, 1977 and claimant Bonner was removed
from service on March 30, 1977. This removal from service of the
claimants by Carrier was a violation of APPENDIX 'M', of the current
Signalmen's Agreement, effective September 1, 1976."
1Carrier file: 135-321-60 Spl. Case No. 320 Sig./
OPINION OF BOARD: The parties revised their working agreement
effective September 1, 1976. Rule 4 of the
Agreement sets forth in detail a two-year training program that the
Company will provide for assistants. The program consists of four
progressive periods of six months each, and Paragraph (d) of Rule 4
provides:
"(d) There will be an examination for each six
month period, such examination will be given at the
end of each period and will be restricted to
material covered during that period. Examinations
will be written, objective in nature, and nondiscriminatory. The minimum grade required to pass
an examination will be 75 per cent. Assistants
will be afforded two opportunities to pass each
examination. Assistants who require a second
opportunity to pass an examination mist take it
within thirty days of being notified of the
initial failure. Assistants who fail to pass the
required examinations will forfeit all seniority
and be considered as resigned from the service of
Award Number 22520 Page 2
Docket Number SG-22482
"the company. Assistants who pass the prescribed
examinations and complete the number of lessons
required for each training period will progress
to the next period."
The parties also entered into Memorandum of Agreement,
effective September 1, 1976, Appendix M, which reads:
"MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
ILLINOIS CENTRAL GULF RAILROAD COMPANY
AND
THE BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD SIGNALMEN
1. Assistants in service on the effective date of the new
Schedule of Rules, who have served two or more years
as an assistant will be promoted to and given a
seniority date in the higher job classification as
of the effective date of the new rules agreement.
Their seniority rank in the higher job classifications
will be determined by their assistant seniority rank.
Such employees will forfeit their seniority as assistants.
2. Assistants in service on the effective date of the
new Schedule of roles who have served less than two
years as an assistant will be required to remain and
receive training as an assistant until such time as
they have completed the required two years. Upon
completion of their training, these assistants will
lose their assistant date and will receive a seniority
date in the higher job classifications retroactive to
the effective date of the New Schedule of Rules.
Their place on the seniority roster will be determined by the order in which they are promoted out o
the training program.
3. In order to correct deficiencies in past assistant
programs and to update and keep current the knowledge
of those employees in the higher job classifications,
the company will offer these employees, from time to
time, related instructions. These employees may be
Award Number 22520 Page 3
Docket Number SG-22482
"required to attend training sessions either during
or outside regular work hours and all time spent is
training during or continuous with regular work
hours will be paid at the straight time rate.
This agreement is effective September 1, 1976.
FOR THE FOR THE
BRaMRHOOD OF RAILROAD SIGNAL- ILLINOIS CENTRAL GULF RAIL
MEN: ROAD:
/s/ B. J. WOODRUFF /s/ ROBED RICHTER
B.
J. Woodruff Robert Richter
General Chairman Director of Labor Relations
APPROVED:
L/
W. D. BEST
Vice President "
The claimants herein had been in service as assistants less
than two years, having been employed on June 28, 1976. They failed,
after two opportunities to pass written examination under Rule 4(d)
and were removed from the service.
The Petitioner contends that as the claimants were covered
by Paragraph (2) of Appendix M, they were not subject to the examinations under Rule 4(d) of the sch
Appendix M is an exception to Rule 4. It is the position of the
Carrier that Appendix M did not exempt claimants from the examination
requirements of Rule 4(d).
Under the Agreement in effect prior to September 1, 1976,
assistants were trained for eight periods consisting of 130 eight-hour
days (generally a span of 4 years), but were not required to take or
pass written examinations for any of the eight training periods.
As the revised scheduled working agreement and Appendix M
were effective the same date, they must be read together and the
entire agreement considered as a whole. Paragraph (2) of Appendix M
provides that assistants covered 'twill be required to remain and
receive training as an assistant until such time as they have
Award Number 22520 Page 4
Docket Number SG-22482
completed the required two years," and provides for their place on
the seniority roster "in the order in which they are promoted out
of the training program."
It is our considered opinion that Bile 4 and Appendix M
are not exclusive of one another, and that assistants covered by
Paragraph (2) of Appendix Mare also covered by Rule 4, which rule
establishes the training program. The record shows that other
assistants who had less than two years training on the effective
date of the Agreement, September 1, 1976, were required to pass
examinations under Idle 4(d) before progressing to the nest
training period.
We find that the Agreement was not violated by the Carrier
in requiring examinations of claimants under Rule 4(d).
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:
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day of September
1979·