(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE;

STATEMENT OF CLAM "Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Rail-

(e) (terrier violated sad continues to violate the current Signalmen's AgreemeatLt particular C&S Supervisor James Davis to take the place of a foremen sad supervise a group of employees other than foreman, included in Rule 2. Supervisor Davis has no contractual right in the Signalmen's Agreement to take the place of a foreman.

 (b) Carrier should now be required, because o! this violation, to pay Signalmea C. B. Wham foremen's pays based on 213 hours per month, in addition to any pay he has earned or will earn as a signalmea for as long as Supervisor Davis takes the place of a foreman.

 (c) Claim is to be retroactive sixty (60) days fry October 9, 1979a and is to continue for as long as the employees are worked as group without a foreman as specified is Rule 2 (a)."

 (Carrier file: SG-418...General Chairman file: SR-138)

 OPINION OF HOARD: The claim asserts a violation of both Scope Rule 1 and
 Classification Rule 2 (a) of the Signalmen's Agreement by the assignment of a C&S Supervisor, not covered by the Agreemeatp to a group of signalmsn who were performing signal work.

 The organization maintains that, instead of using the supervisory the Carrier should have assigned an employs covered by the Agreement, that employs being the senior qualified signalman in the group.

 The Carrier assigned five signalmen from three different headquarters to work jointly on a single project of installing electro-code track circuits to replace as existing pole line near Chestery South Carolina. A foreman was not provided. A MS Supervisor (James Davis), who was not classified in the Signalmen's Agreement., was assigned to the group. The Organization has asserted aril the Carrier has not denied, that Davis supervised the signalmen while they were performing the electro-code installation work.


The central issue on which the dispute turns is whether, as the organization contends, Supervisor Davis took the place of a signal foreman by reason of the fact that he was assigned to, and did, supervise the signalmen group.

 The Organization refers to the range of work reserved to signalmen is Scope Rule 1 and to the definition of "Signal Foreman" contained in Classification Rule 2 (a). The latter rule states:





The (terrier urges denial of the claim, for the reasons that: (1) the claim is not supported by the Agreement; (2) the Organization has failed to meet its burden of proving a contractual requirement on the Carrier's part to provide a foreman.
More specifically, the Carrier asserts `..hat Rule 2 (a) simply defiles a signal foreman. The rule, reserved to the managerial discretion of the Carrier to determine its supervisory requirements. Sere
Hence, according to the Carrier, Supervisor Davis did not take the place of s foreman. The (terrier cites as binding precedent is the instant dispute the korard of Public law Board No. 2044, decided on this property, is which, the Carrier asserts, similar claims in similar circumstances were presented.

 On the entire record and arguments made, the Board concludes that the Carrier violated Scope Rule 1 and Classification Rule 2 of the Signalmen's Agreement, as alleged.

 The Board agrees with the Carrier that Rule 2 (a) in itself does not require the Carrier to provide supervision. The issue in this dispute. however, is not whether the Ca--rier was required to provide supervision. The real issue on this record is whether, having determined that supervision was needed, the Carrier :.ode a proper supervisory assignment under the Signsl.-nen's Agreement.
 Award Number 23959
 Docket Number SG-2391s4

 Page 3

 The operative facts are that the Carrier did assign someone, i.e., s Supervisor, to the group and that he supervised them while they were performing signal work. In the Board's view, those facts effectively brought the Supervisor within the clear language of Rule 2 (a), which defines who a "Signal Foreman" is. Thus it appears that, while in a status outside the coverage of the Signalmen's Agreement, the Supervisor was actually performing the functions of a signal foreman as described is Rule 2 (a). Therefore, in the Board's opinion, he did take the place of a signal foreman and performed work restricted to a signal supervisor. In the Board's opinion, such a substitution tends to undermine the essence of the Scope Rule.

 The Board has carefully considered the Award of Public Law Hoard fto. 2044 and notes that there the controlling facts and central issue were not the same as those nosy before us. There, the signal employee were working on a project without nay assigned supervision and the Organization contended that one of the group should have been paid as a signal foreman. We therefore conclude that the award provides no applicable precedent here.

 The claim will be sustained.

That the parties waived oral hearing;

 That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively terrier 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 violated.

 A W A R D
Claim sustained.

 ATTEST: Acting Mcecutive Secretary

37
 /

:fATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUS'lf1EVT HCARD
 By Order of Third Division

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this lEth day of August i'..2.