NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number SG-2434$
Telford E. Schoonover, Referee
(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Norfolk and Western Railway Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of
Railroad Signalmen on the Norfolk & Western Railway Company
on behalf of Assistant Signalman M. W. Harshbarger, assigned to signal Gang
#2
(a) The Carrier violated the rules of the current Signalmen's
Agreement, in particular Rule
6,
when the Carrier instructed and/or permitted
three (3) assistant signalmen to work under the direction of a signal gang
foreman or a temporary leading signalman. Rule
6
states that an assistant
signalman is an employee in training for a position of signalman, working with
or under the direction of a signalman, performing work generally recognized as
signal work.
(b) In view of the foregoing, the Carrier should now pay Assistant
Signalman Harshbarger the difference between assistant signalman's pay
$8.55
per hoes and signalman's pay
$9.55,
$1·00 Per hour difference for the following
days: January 2, 10 hours; January 3, 11 hours; January 4, 11 hours; a total
claim of 32 hours at $1.00 per hour equals
$32.00."
OPINION OF BOARD: The fact situation in this case is reasonably clear.
Carrier bifurcated Signal Gang #2 on the dates in question
with the result that claimant, an Assistant Signalman, was working directly with
a Leading Signalman at one location while other Assistant Signalmen in the gang
were working directly with the Signalman member of the gang at another location.
The thrust of Petitioner's argument in this case goes toward Rule No.
6
- ASSISTANT SIGNALMAN. ETC.- The language of Rule No.
C is:
"An employe in training far a position of sigaslman or
signal maintainer, working with or under the direction
of a signalman or a signal maintainer, performing work
generally recognized as signal work, shall be classified
as an assistant signalman or assistant signal maintainer."
They contend that claimant was not "working with or under the direction
of a signalman" and therefore he is entitled to be paid at the Signalman's
rate of pay.
Carrier argues that, by definition found in Rule No.
3'=
LEADING
SIGNALMAN, the Leading Signalman is first and foremost a SIGNALMAN and therefore
the claimant Assistant Signalman was properly utilized as contemplated by Rule
No.
6.
The language of Rule No.
3
is as follows:
Award Number 24053
Docket Number
SG-24348
"A signalman under the direction of a foreman working
with and assigned to supervise the work of signalmen,
and other employer specified herein, shall be
classified as a leading signalman." (Underscoring
ours)
Page
2
Based upon the facts and evidence in this case it is apparent that
the leading Signalman on the claim dates performed Signalman's work and was
assisted by the claimant Assistant Signalman. There is no evidence in this
record that claimant actually performed Signalman's work which would entitle
him to the rate differential claimed. The principle established by Award
1_3950,
13951
and
13952
of this Division is equally applicable here.
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 Employer involved in this dispute are
respectively Carrier and Employer 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 W A R D
Claim denied.
Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
Rosemarie Breach - Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this day op November
2.9a2.
NATIONAL RAILRQAD AD7USTMNT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
