~W




                  THIRD DIVISION Docket Number SG-25294


                      Edward L. Suntrup, Referee


                  (Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen

    PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

                  (Consolidated Rail Corporation


    STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad

                  Signalmen on the Consolidated Rail Corporation:


System Docket 1846

Northeastern Region Case 06-82-M-0005


    Claim on behalf of R. Randazzo, certain other named claimants and "a11 employees affected during interim" for "monetary rate adjustments... to be determined at the time of settlement with regards to the total number of straight and overtime hours" account some Assistant Foreman/Assistant Inspector positions were abolished and readvertised as Maintainers, positions on Seniority District 9.


    OPINION OF BOARD: On January 22, 1982 the Local Chairman of the Brotherhood

    of Railroad Sigalmen, Local 86, filed a grievance concerning

    the abolishment of Assistant Foremen and Assistant Inspector positions on Seniority

    District No. 9. These positions were abolished by Carrier Bulletin No. R 12 81

    which was dated December 23, 1981. it is the contention of the Brotherhood

    that when these positions were abolished, and Maintainer positions concurrently

    bulletined, the Carrier violated working Agreement Rule 5-D-1. This Rule states:


          "Established positions shall not be discontinued and new ones created under a different title governing relatively the same class of work for the purpose of reducing the rate of pay or evading the application of the rules in this Agreement."


    Classifications under the Scope Rule of the Agreement of September 1, 1981 between the parties reads as follows for the job titles in question:


          "Assistant Inspector


          An employee assigned to assist in the performance of Inspector duties and to perform the work of employees assigned to him.


          Assistant Foreman


          An employee assigned to assist in the performance of Foreman duties. The Assistant Foreman may perform the work of employees assig--d to him when the number of such employees does not exceed seven (7J.

                    Award Number 25219 Page 2

                    Docket Number SG-25294


        'Maintainer


        An employee assigned to perform either signal or communication inspection, testing, maintenan and repair work covered by this Agreement within an assigned territory."


As moving party in the instant case it is the duty of the Organization to show, by means of substantial evidence, that the Agreement was violated. Factually, the Organization must show that the new Maintainer positions bulletined on December 23, 1981 require the performance of work accruing to the higher classifications cited above.
A review of the record by the Board fails to show any Agreement provisions which.do not permit the Carrier prerogatives to adjust its number of supervisory personnel. When the Carrier eliminated the Assistant Foremen and Assistant Inspector positions on the date in question it did so because it determined, at that time, that an Inspector at Utica (ICY.) and one at Oneida (ICY.) were sufficient to "efficiently handle the involved areas^. The Carrier was within its managerial rights when it made this decision. When the new positions of Maintainer were bulletined and bid upon each of these positions and the gangs to which they are part reported to one of those two Inspectors.
The Board can also find nothing in the record to show that the new Maintainer positions require the incumbents thereto to perform duties other than those listed in that Classification under the Scope Rule of the September 1, 1981 Agreement.
        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 BOAROx`Y'

                          By Order of Third Division


                                              :i i


Attest:
        Nancy ~_ver - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this llth day of January 1985.