(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

.STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of

(a) Carrier violates the current Signalmen's Agreement, as amended, particularly Rules 22 and 5.

 (b) Carrier should now be required to compensate Assistant Signal Maintainer A. D. Middleton the difference between top assistant rate of pay (8.27) and the Lead Signal Maintainer rate of pay (9.45) which amounts to $47.20.

 (c) Carrier should am be required to compensate Mr. Middleton the difference between assistant maintainer overtime rate (72.405) and Lead Signal Maintainer (14.175) for service performed on June 14, 1979, and the difference between Signal Maintainer overtime rate (14.ol0) and Lead signal maintainer rate (14.175) for service performed on June 15, 1979. A total amount of $4.56.

 (General Chairman file: 37-A.D. Middleton - 79. Carrier file: 15-22(7¢20) J)"

 OPINION OF BOARD: The Organization alleges that the Carrier violated Rules 5
 and 22 of the applicable agreement when it refused to compensate claimant, an assistant signal maint of pay during the period from June 11 through June 15, 1979. According to the Organization, the claimant actually performed the duties and assignments of the regularly assigned lead signal maintainer who was on vacation during the period in question at the Carrier's Rice Yard. The claimant urges us to award him the difference in pay between the rate for an assistant signal maintainer and the rate for a lead signal maintainer for the straight time and overtime hours he worked during the week of June 11, 1979.

 The Carrier contends it has no absolute obligation under the National Vacation Agreement to fill a vacation vacancy, and even if it had decided to temporarily assign a replacement to the lead signal maintainer position, the Carrier would have filled the vacation vacancy with the regularly assigned signal maintainer (not the claimant). Furthermore, the Carrier specifically denies the Organization's assertion that claimant performed any of the lead signal maintainer's duties and, assuming for the sake of argument claimant did perform such duties, the Carrier never instructed the claimant to do so.


As authority for their contention that claimant is entitled to a higher rate of pay, the Employes cite Rule 22 which states:

        "When an employee is required to fill the place of another employee receiving a higher rate of pay, he shall receive the higher rate; but if required to fill temporarily the place of an employee receiving a lower rate, his rate will not be


The Carrier ,justifies its action under Article 6 of the National Vacation Agreement which follows:

        "The carriers will provide vacation relief workers but the vacation system shall not be used as a device to make unnecessary ,jobs for other workers. Where worker is not needed in a given instance and if failure to provide a vacation relief worker does not burden those employees remaining on the ,job, or burden th his return from vacation, the carrier shall not be required to provide such relief worker."


After carefully perusing the record, we rule that the Carrier could, under these circumstances, determine that a relief worker was not needed to fill the vacation vacancy. The Organization has failed to offer any evidence showing the one week absence of the lead signal maintainer imposed a burden on the claimant. The Carrier nei claimant did not assume any more responsibility than he ordinarily carries when performing his normal signal maintenance assignments. Since the Carrier did not temporarily appoint claimant to the lead signal maintainer position and since claimant did not actually fill the position, claimant was properly compensated for the work he 19T9.

        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 Enployes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway Iabor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;

 That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and
                    Avard Number 23480 Page 3

                    Docket Number SG-23863


        That the Agreement vas not violated.


                      A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                        NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMQVT HOARD

                        By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 8th day of January 1982.

 ·n