PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of
 Railroad Signalmen of the Chicago and North Western

(a) Carrier violated the provisions of the current Signalmen's Agreement especially Rule #76 when it unilaterally abolished 59b Mtnr. Irvington at 7:00 a.m. June 2, 1980 on Bulletin #9 and established an hourly rated position at Blair, Neb. on same Bulletin to be in effect on same date as the abolishment.
(b) Carrier now be required to compensate Mr. E. E. Gibson, the regular assignee on date position was abolished, the difference in wages and be re-imbursed for all expenses incurred in performing his job assignment, which would have been compensated to him had the job assignment not been changed, until his former position is restored.- (Carrier File: 79-3-147)
OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant was employed as a Signal Maintainer at Irvington,
 Nebraska. Such position was established as a monthly rated assignment under the provisions of Rule 59 (b). The Carrier abolished the position and simultaneously established an hourly rated position of Signal Maintainer at Blair, Nebraska. The Claimant bid on and won the new position, which the Organization alleges, "maintains the same equipment°.
The Organization argues that this occurrence violated Rule 76 in that the Claimant lost pay for noon meals and "the difference" in wages between the hourly rate and the monthly rate. Rule 76 reads as follows:







The Carrier argues that the Rule 59 (b) position was abolished because the incumbent employe ^no longer travels on a regular basis^. Since Rule 59 (b) provides for "traveling assignments" to employes "regularly assigned to perform road work" (emphasis added), the Carrier has shown that justification for continuance of such position is not required or warranted.
                      Locket Number SG-24340


In the alternative, the Organization has failed to provide proof convincing to the Board that the change was made "for the purpose of reducing rates of pay or evading application of these rules" rather than because of the change in traveling aspect of the position.
Award Number 24165 (Joseph Sickles) is of direct relevant here. This Award states as follows:
        "There is no question that the economic amounts paid to a Signal Maintainer on a regular hourly basis with no overtime is significantly less than the amount of monthly compensation which would be paid to a Traveling Signal mainainer. But that does not dispose of the case. Surely, a Carrier need not necessarily maintain a position indefinitely if the character of the work requirements have altered. Here, the Organization has an obligation to show, by a substantive preponderance of the evidence, that the Rules have been violated. In fact, the indications of record show that there is no significant amount of travel involved for the position and thus it is appropriate, under the language of the contract and various cited Awards, to permit the Carrier to function in the manner it did."


        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 Employes involved in this dispute are 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 W A R D


        Claim denied.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:

            x let/.

        Nancer - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 15th day of December 1983.