NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Locket Number SG-24670
Josef P. Sirefman, Referee
(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(The Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company
(Pere Marquette District)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claims of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of
Railroad
Signalmen on
The Chesapeake and Ohio Rai14, :
Company (Pere Marquette District):
Claim No. 1. General Chairman file: 81-13-PM. Carrier file: SG-629
(a) Carrier is in violation of the parties' Communication Agreement,
as amended, particularly Number of Assistants Rule 301, when it allows the ratio
of Assistants on the Line Gang Force 1891 to be more 'than one Assistant for each
three Maintainers (Linemen) employed.'
(b) Carrier take necessary action to reduce the number of Assistants
(sic) positions assigned to Line Gang Force 1891 to a number consistent with
content of Rule 301.
Claim No. 2. General Chairman file: 81-13-PM(1). Carrier file:
(a) Carrier is in violation of the parties' Communication Agreement,
as amended, particularly Rule 304, when employees assigned to Assistant positions
on Communication Force 1891 are not transferred "in order to afford them an
opportunity to acquire knowledge and training in all branches of their work.'
(b) Carrier now take necessary action to comply with the requirement
of Rule 304 by requesting the Brotherhood's concurrence in a "written agreement"
to transfer each Assistant to positions "where they will have opportunity to
avail themselves of the necessary training and experience to thereby assist them
in qualifying for positions of Maintainers" and "in order to afford them an
opportunity to acquire knowledge and training in all branches of their work."
OPINION OF BOARD: The two rules in
contention here
are 301 and 304(a). A review
of the record before this Board establishes that Rule 301 was
intended to be viewed in terms of the entire Seniority Roster, and in that
context the number of Assistants (Maintainers) was proper. With respect to Rule
304(a), which contemplates rotation of Assistants for training purposes, there is
nothing in the record to indicate that the parties intended positions to be
established for the purpose of providing such rotation. In view of the
conclusions reached by this Board it is not necessary to consider the procedural
issue raised.
Award Number 25509 Page 2
Locket Number SG-24670
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Hoard, 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
Claims denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
Attest:
Nancy ver - Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 13th day of June 1985.
