_:a~Ior:AL R=wAD ALJUSC4;-~=
aca:~
THIRD DIVISION:I locket :-.umber SG-22°j2
iLartin F. Scheinman, Raferee
(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
PARTIES TO DISPUTE
(Southern Railway Company
ST.'vC~·~==:: CF CL,AI7d: ''Trim of the General
Committee
of the Brotherhood of
Railroad ~ig:almen on the Southern Railway Concrana et al.:
In behalf of System Signal Gang
;71:
Foreman R. L. Price; Leading
Signalman J. G. Taylor; Signalmen L. B. :dills, J. E. Hide1, S. M. Brown and
R, J. Burchfield; Assistant Signalmen R.
;a.
Wiley and M. A. 371.ery; for
thirty (30) hours overtime each because they were not allowed to work
December 10, 11 and 12,
1977,
when Carrier arbitrarily changed their work
period while on the same pro;ect." (General ChaLrman file: SR-17.
Carrier file: SG-3C2)
0~ T
='_CN 07
BCARD: P:rsuant to Rule
9
of the applicable Signalman's Agreement
the normal work week for employer assigned to Signal
System Gangs consists of four 1C-hour days. During Fall,
1977,
the work
schedule of System Signal Gang l1 consisted of eight ten-hour days with six
days off. This variance from the normal work week was properly established
by Carrier with the concurrence of the majority of the.employes in the gang
pursuant to Rule 9(b)(1).
Effective December 6th,
1977,
Carrier required the employes to
revert back to the normal work week. This change from an eight day work period
to a four day work period was without emneurrence of the Organization or
the majority of the employee in the gang.
The organization's central argument is that Carrier's action violated the Rule
9
of the Agreement. It claims that once an alternative work
period is established Carrier may not change the work period of the System
Gang unless requested in writing to do so by the General Chairmman. In the
Organization's view, any changes after work periods have been agreed to
whether they be to the normal work week or to any other of the options listed
in Rule
9,
can only be done upon written notice from the General Chairman.
Agar
a
='z,°fber
23133
= ' 2
G3rrier, on the other hand, insists that the change in
work period was proper. It asserts that there is nothing in the Agreement restricting it from revert
Resolution of the issue raised here requires an interpretation
of Rule
9.
It states:
"Rule
9.
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (b) hereof,
the normal work week of employees assigned to System
Signal Gangs shall consist of four 10 hour days.
t
Carrier's option, '.lit h corcur-r°_ncee of a ?."~j,^.r^ ~·of employees assigned to t
off days for employees of a System Signal Gang will be
accumulated according to one of the following choices
while working at a given work project.
(1) A fourteen day work period consisting of ten
working days of eight hours each and four days off,
or eight working days of ten hours each and six off
days.
(2) A twenty-one day work period consisting of
fifteen working days of eight hours each and six
off days, or twelve working days of ten hours each
and nine days off.
(3)
A twenty-eight day work period consisting of
twenty working days of eight hours each and eight
days off, or sixteen working days of ten hours each
and twelve days off.
Thereafter, any change is the selection of the
work period by the employees while at such given
work project shall only be made by written notice
from the General Chairman. The Carrier shall not
be put to any additional expense because of a
change in the work periods; however, the Carrier
will make whole any employee who, when the gang
first commences operation,, or an employee first
accepts assignment to a position on the System
Signal Gang,, is required to observe off days
without having an opportunity to perform services on all of the working days is the work
period."
_war= _:-;tuner 23133
Docket ;:;;tuber 33-22852
The first paragraph of Rule
9
establishes the normmal work
week: "four 10 hour days". Paragraph (b) states that Carrier, with the
concurrence of the employes in the Gang, may provide for the accumulation
of off days. 9(b)(1) - 9(b)(3) sets forth the possible alternate work
periods - fourteen days, twenty-one days or twenty-eight days.
The final paragraph of Rule
9
addresses the issue of how the
employes might secure a change from one of the alternate work periods
selected. -mile at the same work location any change on the selection
of the work period by the embloves requires written notice by the
General -hairnvn. That is, 'lali~e
°_Si'abl'-sh'_:l~
an alternate war::
ricw -;h=C=
r°_qu __ ....
th3
concurrence ,.: ~.:_ -a.'Ority
3f
emnlo-,-es -'-n
the gang, a change from such alternate period requires the General
Chairman's involvement.. The employes in the gang may not on their
own petition the Carrier for a change. Only the General Chairman may
speak for the employes.
Thus, the last paragraph of Rule 9 addresses changes from
the alternate work period sought by the employes. It does not, in
any way, address the situation here - Carrier wanting a change from
an alternate work period.
In sum, Rule 9 cannot be construed as preventing or limiting
Carrier from changing from an alternate work period. Neither the
language of Rule 9 or any other language in the System Agreement can
be interpreted to preclude a change to the normal work week initiated
bay Carrier.
Given the absence of any specific restriction, Carrier was
free, under well established labor relations principles, to implement
the change back to the normal work week. The Organization's Agreement
was not required. After all, it is axiomatic that Carrier retains all
managerial prerogatives not relinquished by the Rules Agreements. See
Awards 8218, 14869, 16458, 19596. Therefore, we will deny the claim
in its entirety.
r^IN9MGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving the
parties to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon, and upon
the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:
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;
Award ;?u.-:oer
23133
_^-~e a
Docket :un~oer Su-22852
That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction
over the dispute involved herein; and
That the Agreement vas not violated.
A :T A R D
Claim. denied.
_.AT1li. FA_uGAD
Aya.IIJU'u'.!i
ECO.D
By Order of Third Division
ATTEST
Executive Secre rf
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 15th day of January
1981.
Chico
CID
go
y. ~c-"o