_ NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

Award Number 23264

THIRD DIVISION Docket Number SG-23386

Carlton R. Sickles, Referee

(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
PARTIES TO DISPUTE=PM:
(Southern Railway Company

STATEIERT OF CLA324: "Claim of the General Commdttee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalman on the Southern Railway Company et al:

On behalf of Signalman L. B. Xills, headquarters Attalla., Alabama,

for the difference in pay between that of Signnlman and Leading Signalman
for all hours worked from January 22, 1979 thru March 9s 1979p because
four Sigoalmen were worked as a group on the same o act."

(General Chairman file: SR-117) ier file: SG- ol~

OPD=N OF BOARD: The claimant is the senior signalman of four signalmen who were working on the same project. He seeks the difference in pay between that of a sigmlmaa and a leading signalman. Rule 2(c) is cited as support for this claim and provides as follows:

"Leading Signal Maintainer: (Reyised4pril 1, 1942)

A signal mintainer assigned to work with and supervise the work of one or more signal maintainers shall be classified as a leading signal maintainer; the number of employees that may be supervised by a leading signal maintainer shall not exceed, exclusive of the leading maintainer, a total of four (4) men covered by the scope of this agreement. This paragraph does not apply when maintainers of separate sections are temporarily working together, unless one of the maintainers is required by proper authority to assume responsibility and direction as a leading maintainer."

The Carrier points out that Rule 2(c) applies to leading signal maintainer which is different from a signalman and that actually Rule 2(b) applies to signalmen.

Award Humber 23264 Page 2

_. Docket ltmsber sG-23386

However, even if 2(c) did apply to sigmlmn, it aoas not support the claimant because it refers to a person who is as. signed to work with and supervise the work of one or more signal maintai.nas. There is no assertion here that the claimant had been assigned. to supervise the others with wham he worked which would make this provision operable.

The claimant further relies upon a letter of understanding dated April. 9, 19T4. The letter of understanding is as follows:

"During discussion of the above claims in conference, it was agreed that when necessary in the future to send Signal employees

may

from a gang or age to which assigned to work together at another location (other than with another Signal Gang) four any reason, the following shall govern:

1. A group of not more than four employees ray be sent away from a gang or gauge to work together at another location.

2. If two or more employees are sent to work in a group, the senior employee in such group sh0.11 be paid the leaders rate of pay when no leading signalman is in the group.

3. In selecting employees to be sent away from a gang, the senior employees) in the gnng(s) of the class or classes needed (other than Foreman or Leading signalman) shall .be given-preference to the assignment.

4. If no employees of the class or classes needed desire to be sent away from the ®sng(s), the J=iar eaplc>ee(s) apt the class or classes needed shall be given the assignment.

Itaa (2) above shall not apply when two or more signalmen and/or assistant signalmen are detached from a gang and sent to work with a signal maintainer or floating signalman. In that case, the maintainer or floating signe.1.maa will be paid at the rate of leading sigoslmsa (maintainer)."

Award Number 23264 page 3

Docket Amber &G-23386

The only support that the claimant can receive from this docment would possibly be Paragraph 2 if it were taken out of the context of the entire letter. Howe letter applies only in the situation where there is a Sang and a St of eaployes are dispatched from that gang to work in another location. That is not the case here. The claimant was a floating sigaelwan and not a member of a gang. Applying then the rules and letter of understanding relied upon by the claimant to the instant case, we find that the claim is without merit. FDd)IBGS: 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 &ployes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Esployes within the meaning of the ihiilmay labor Act, as apps 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. 1fATIOAAL RAILROAD ADJW1MT BOAR By Order of Third Division ATTEST: A Ixecutive Secretary Dated at Chicago., Illinois, this 15th day of April 1981.