j J
c,~L
`.
_ NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUS24WT BOARD
Award
Number 24149
THIRD DIVISION
Docket Number SG-2j944
Ids naus.. Referee
(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
PARTIES TO DISPUTE
(Southern Railway Company
STATEME19T OF CLAM: "Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Rail-
road Signalmen on the Southern Railway Company et al:
(s) GBrrier violated end continues to violate the current Signal.
men's Agreemeatv particularly Scope Rule 1 nod Rule 2 (a)., when they permitted
C&3 Supervisor James Davis to take the place of a foreman end supervise a
group of eaployeesi other then foreman, included is Rule 2. Supervisor Davis
has no eoatracfo$1 right in the Sians7.mGa's Agreement to take the place of a
foreman.
(b) Carrier should now be required bemuse of this violations to
pay Sigaalmaa C. B. Wham foreman's pays based on 213 hours per moathj, is
addition to any pay he has earned or will earn as a signalman for as long as
Supervisor Davis takes the place of a foreman.
(c) Claim is to be retroactive sixty (60) days from October
9, 1979,
end is to continue for as long as the employees are worked as group without s
foreman as specified is Rule 2 (a)." .
(Carrier tile: SG-418...General Chairman file: SR-138)
OPINION CF BOARD: The claim asserts a violation of both Scope Rule l and
Classification Rule 2 (a) of the Signalmen's Agreement
by the assignment of a C3rS Supervisory not covered by the Agreements to s
group of signalmen who were performing signal work.
The Organization maintains that instead of using the supervisor, the
(hazier should have assigned as employe covered by the Agreement, that employe
being the senior qualified signalman is the
group.
The Carrier assigned five signalman from three different headquarters
to work jointly on a single project. of installing electro-code track circuits
to replace as existing pole line near Chester., South Carolina. A foreman was
not provided. A CgS Supervisor (James Davis), who was not classified 3n the
Sipal
a's Agreements was assigned to
the group
. The Organization has asserted
and the Carrier has not denied,, that Davis supervised the sipa?.m°a xhile the;
were performing the electro-code installation work.
pvard . 24149 page 2
Docket Rnmber SG-239
i
The central issue
as which
the dispute turns is
whether,
as the ` .
Orgeaizatiaa contends.. supervisor Davis took the place
or
a signal foreman
by reason of the tact that he was assigned to, sad did, supervise the
site
group.
The Osgnaisatioa refers to the range of work reserved to
site
is Scope Role 1 and to the definition
or
"Signal.
Foreman"
contained is
Classification Rstle 2 (s). The latter vale states:
"(a) Si,gsl Fbrcmna: (EL'Seetive septubm
16, 1946) .
An employee assigned. to supervise s grasp of
employees (other than foremen). included is this
isle 2, end who is not required to red pertarm air of the work which he supervises.
A foreman may, as part of his duties, make inspections and tests in
P
", ectioa with his works bat
shall not take the place
or
another employee covered
by thin agreement.".
The ($ITier
mygea
denial at the claims
t0=
the reasons that:
(1)
the claim is not supported b>' the Agreement:
(2)
the or~atmttoa has
failed to meet its burden of proving a watractual.reqaixemea£ an the Carrier's.
part to provide a foreman,
More specifically, the Carrier asserts that Rsi1a 2 (a)
simply
defines n signal foreman. The rate, it nays, does not is ltse3t create a post-.
tioa
or
signal foreman or require the essigameat of one. Those functions are
reserved to the managerial discretion of the Carrier to determine its super-.
visaxy requirements. Here, the Carrier states there vas no position
or
fore
men is existence and the Carrier properl7 determined that cone was needed.
Hear,
according to the Carsier, Supervisor Davis did not take the
place
or
a foreman. He simply supervised these men as a group is the same way
he- aarmal7y had none on s regular, basis as their C34S
supervisor
rhea they xorked
along at their regular headquarters.
The Carrier cites as bindiffg precedent is the instant dispute the
Award.
or
Public Iew Board No. 2044 cad the resent Award Rimlber 23903 or the
?'him
Division, both decided on this property, The
Carrier
asserts that similar claim in similar circumstances were presented sad denied is both awa
On the entire record and arguments made in the submissions and. is oral
hearing, the Board concludes that the furrier violated Scope Rube No. 1 and Classi
ricstioa Rule No. 2
or
the SiBoalmea's Agreement., as alleged. -
The Board agrees with `.he Carrier that Rule 2 (a) in itself does not
require the Carrier to provide supervision. The issue is this dispute, hovevrr,
is not whether the C=rie_- was required to rovide su;ervision. The rear, issue
on this record is whether , having determined that supervision was needed, the
Carrier made a proper supervisory assign:aeat wader the Signalmea's A6reeaeat.
Award Number
24149
page 3
Docket Number
SG-239
The operative facts ere that the (terrier did assign
someone, i
.e., a
~upexvisor.* to the group sad that he supervised them directly while they were
performing signal work an a . In the Board's view,, these facts brought
the Supervisor within the clear language at Rule 2(a)j, which defines who e
"Signal Foreman" is. Thus it. significantly appears that,. while is a status
outside the coverage of the Signalmen's
Agreement,
the Supervisor was actually
performing the functions of a signal foreman as described in Rule 2(e). Lea
if he had not been expressly instructed to act as a foreman, it is what he did
sot how he wen deaignated.9 that is controlling. The record does sot support
the C4rrier's assertion that Davis simply performed his usual
Caw
supervisory
duties. _
Accordingly., the Board concludes that Davis did take the place of e
signal foreman sad
performed work
restricted to a signal supervisor. ?a the
Boatel's opiaio% such a substitution terms to undermine the essence of .the
Scope Rule.
The Board has carefully considered both awards cited by the Carrier
and notes that is both the coatro7lir facts sad central issue were not the
acme as those now before us. In both prior instances, the signal employee
were working an s project without sap assigned supervision. The Organization
contended that supervision was necessary and that one of the group should
have bees designated sad paid as a signal foreman, We note also the emphasis
in Award Number 23903 that the essential allegation of the claim, that the man
bed worked as a "gang".. was act supported by the recap.. In our opinion., the
awards provide no applicable precedent here.
FINflt<VGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Baerdp after giving the
parties to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon and upon
the whole record sad all the evidences finds sad holds:
That the Carrier sad the Employes involved is this dispute are
respectively Carrier sad Employes within:-the messing of the Railway Labor
Acts as approved June 21,
19341 _
That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction
over the dispute involved herein; sad
That the Agreement was violated.
A W A R D
Claim sustained. _
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSM4ENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
ATTEST-. Acting Executive Secre
tional Railroad Adjustment Board
By 11
Rosemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago., Illinois this 15th day of February -198,