(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES '!n DISPUTE:

STAT$LOT CF CLAIM "Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of



(a) Carrier Violated the Sigaalmen's Agreement, particularly Roles 7 (a) and 30 (c) and an established practice, when they abolished the second shift Signal Maintainer's Position at John Sevier Retarder Yard on July 4, 1980 in order to advoid (sir) paying time and one half. The second shift Maintainer's position at John Sevier Retarder Yard is an established 7 day position and has historically been filled 7 days a week.

 (b) Carrier should nom be required to compensate Signalmen Hugh Xing,, who vas relieving L. W. Dills' second shift Signal Maintainer position while Mr. Dills vas on vacation, an amount equal to eight (8) hot= at his time and one-half rate, far the loss of mark he vas denied on July 4, 1980, and because the Agreement vas violated.


Rates 7 (a) end 30 (c) as well as the established practice that 7 day positions
 be filled 7 days per veekr when they abolished the Second Shift.Sigaal Maim
 ,i position at She=elA Retarder Yard on Jay h paying time and one half the Second
 advoid (sic) Signal Maintainer.
 The Second Shift Signal Nniatniner's position is an established 7 day position
 and has historically been filled 7 days per week.

(a) Carrier violated the present Sigaalmen'a Agreement, particularly Rules 30 and 32, when they abolished or blanked the seven day position at deButts Retarder Yard and vhea they refused to compensate Second Shift Signal Maintainer G. B. Brown for eight (8) hours at his overtime rate on labor Day September 1, 1980.

 (b) Carrier should now be required to compensate Second Shift Signal Maintainer G. E. Brown an amount equal to five (5) hours and twenty (20) miantes at his overtime rate in addition to any other pay he has received because he vas only paid a ziwi~ call for mark performed en a seven day assignment which is required to be vorked or paid eight hours."


OPINION Cr BOARD: The Carrier blanked certain positions an holidays rhich
 prompted the claims in question. The Organisation asserts
 a violation of the Agreement and past practice since the positions in question
 had been "...filled seven (7) days a week since those positions had been estab
 lished years ago.'

 The parties have cited various portions of the Roles Agreement and the Carrier emphasises Rule 20 (a), which provides that in weeks in rhtch holidays occur the number of days of work say be reduced by the number of such holidays.

 We have reviewed the record at length and we have considered the various authorities cited by the parties but we are unable to find that the Carrier violated any provisions of the Agreement when it blanked the positions in question and accordingly ve will deny the claim.

 FINDINGS: She Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving the parties
 to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon' nod up°n n the vbole

 record and ail the evidence, finds and holds: That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dis respectively Carrier and Maployes within the meaning of the Milxay Labor Act,
 an approved June 21, 1934;

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

        Shat the Agreement vas not violated.


                      A V A R D


        Claim denied.


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD AWUS21T SUM

                            By Order of ahlrd Division


        ATTEST: Acting Executive Secretary National. Railroad Adjustment Board


-00007 Rosemarie Brasch -Administrative Assistant

        Dated at Chimgo, Illinois, this 13th day of May 1983

                                        C-1VED


                                  `~ Jiit ~'"`~


                                            .oh