Carlton R. Sickles, Referee


(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (
                (Chicago sad North Western Transportation Company


STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of R
              Signal men on the Chicago sad North Western Transportation Company:


(a) (terrier is violating the June 1, 1951 Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen's Agreement as amended, in particular Rule T and the Scope Agr when Mr. C. E. Boyles established a second trick maintainer at the Lake BluffGlencae territory by bu 1979 but doesn't char the Glencoe Maintainer as having 20 minutes far lunch and requires him to stay one-Half hour longer, this includes the assistant maintainer also.

 (b) Carrier now be required to compensate Mr. R. Lane for signal maintainer at Glencoe and Mr. L. Kringle the assistant maintainer at Glencoe the following; one-half hour at the overtime past the 3:00 ?.Me quitting time." .

 (General Chairman file: 5-272 Carrier file: 79-8-289)
OPINION OF BOARD: The Carrier combined two signal maintenance territories into
 one territory but maintained two separate headquarters. The
 propriety of maintaining two headquarters in one combined territory was upheld
 in Award 20811, which has been supported by subsequent awards.

 The Carrier established a second shift at one of the headquarters but maintained a single shift at the other headquarters where claimants are located.

 The question at issue is the application of Rule 7, which reads in part as follows:

        "7. Where two or three shifts are employed, the spread of each shift will be eight hours, including an allowance of twenty minutes far meal, which time allowance will be regularly established between the ending of the fourt seventh hour after starting work.


        "Except as otherwise mutually agreed to, where one shift is employed, s meal period will be not less than thirty minutes nor more than, one hour and will be regularly established between the ending of the fourth a the seventh hour after starting."

                        Award Number 23949 Page 2

                        Docket Number SG-2393q


Since the second shift vas not established at the claimant's headquarters, the Carrier continued pay so that the total period covered by the claimant's work day was eight and one-half hours including the one-half hour for meal time which was not compensated.

 Pursuant to Rule T, the Carrier provided at the other headquarters far an eight-hour day which included a twenty minute meal period for which the employee were paid.

 It is the contention of the claimants that they should be paid for the additional half hour that they are made to work each day for which they are sot being paid. Their theory is that Rule 7 applies throughout the entire territory and is not to be interpreted as applicable separately to each headquarters. Each side in t interpreted is its favor.

 In all candor, it must be recognized that when the bargaining parties initially adopted this language they were not applying it to the set of circumstances that we now ar necessarily anticipated that solution or considered all the consequences which would flow therefrom.

 In point of fact, Rule 7 does not say that it is applicable in the territory or that it is applicable at the headquarters. Naturally, the terrier is going to interpret it as it teas dune so in this instant. We are not is a position to refute this interpretation as not being a logical one which flows from the decision in Award 20811.

 The point is made by the Organization that the (terrier, at one time, used the argument that eves where two headquarters are involved it is all one territory, fns the purpose of having a sigaslmaa at one headquarters and as assistant signalaea at another headquarters. We do not find the fact that the Carrier used this argument so compelling as to overcome what otherwise appears to be a reasonable interpretation of Rule 7 where there are two headquarters established.

        FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Hoard, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:


        That the parties waived oral hearing;


That the Carrier and the r'liployes involved is this dispute are respectively Carrier affil Employee within the meaning of the Railway labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;
                        Award Number 23949 Page 3

                        Docket Number SD-23937


That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

        That the Agreement vas not violated.


                          A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADZM24ENT BOARD

                            By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: Acting Ezecutive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 BY
      e ie Brasch - Administrative Assistant


Dated at Chicago Illinois this 14th day of July 1982.