(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company
 ( (Pare Marquette District)

(a) Carrier violated and continues to violate the C&0 Railway Pere Marquette District Communication Agreement, particularly Rules 200, 201, 202, 203, 207, 208, 505, 506, 701 and 908, when on or about July 24, 1978 positions of Electronic Repairman on Force No. 1809 - Grand Rapids, and Force No. 1802 - Dearborn, Michigan, were changed from first shift assignment to second shift assignment without proper negotiations.

 (b) Carrier should now be required to place Claimants E. Tabor and D. A. Sayed back on their first shift assignments until the parties' Agreement has been complied with. In the meantime, Carrier should compensate Claimants, or their successors, at their time and one-half rate for all hours worked after 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, starting on or about July 24, 1978, less time already allowed. Overtime rate requested here is to be in addition to monthly rate contemplated by Rule 701. The claim to commence July 24, 1978 and continue thereafter until Claimants are returned to their first shift assignment or the violation is corrected.

 (c) Carrier should, in the event the claim is sustained, check its records jointly and in cooperation with Representatives of this Brotherhood. to determine the number of man hours worked by Claimants after 4:30 P.m., Monday through Friday, in aiding to determine the amount of compensation due Claimants."

 (General Chairman file: 78-40-PM. (terrier file: SG-561)

The claims arose when the Carrier abolished two first shift Electronic Repairman positions at two locations and advertised two electronic Repairman positions for the second shift at the same locations.

 The Organization asserts that ?tale 202 required prior negotiation at the local level for the shift change and that the Carrier's ~Lnilsteral action therefore violated that requirement.


Upon review of the record and analysis of the provisions of Rule 202, the Board concludes that the Organization has failed to support its position by persuasive probative evidence.

 Rule 202(c) provides for mutual agreement between the signal supervisor and the local chairman o other than the first shift" is to be made. That provision is not applicable to the record Pacts before us. With respect to these facts, we discern nowhere in Rule 202 an obligation of the Carrier to negotiate before making a change is shift or establishing a second shift. That determination has been left to the managerial discretion of the Carrier.

        The claims will be denied.


        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 sad the Employee involved in this dispute ere respectively Carrier 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 not violated.


                      A 41 A R D


        Claims denied.

                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: Acting Executive Secretary _ , _
      National Railroad Adjustment Board


3y
    .o marie Brasch - Administrative Assis-.ant


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 16th Say of August 19 2.