NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number SG-26083
(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(The Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company (Pere Marquette
(District)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signal
(a) Carrier violated the parties' Signal Agreement, particularly
Rule 818 - Rulings, when Carrier failed to furnish the General Chairman with
copy of its letter from Manager Labor Relations W. C. Comiskey to Manager
Engineering J. R. Rymer written on or about April 15, 1980 concerning interpretation of Signal Rule
(b) Carrier further violated said Agreement when during conference
held between General Chairman Parker and Manager Labor Relations Comiskey on
Thursday, September 9, 1982 Mr. Comiskey refused to furnish Mr. Parker with
copy of his letter to Mr. Rymer written on or about April 15, 1980.
(c) Carrier furnish General Chairman Parker with copy of said letter
pursuant to the requirements of the parties' S&C Rule 818. Carrier file SG668-General Chairman f
OPINION OF BOARD: The basic facts are not in dispute. On April 5, 1980, a
Local Chairman submitted a Claim for meal expenses. On
April 15, 1980, Mr. R. J. Rymer, Manager-Engineering, responded to the Claim.
The next development occurred August 16, 1982, when the Carrier's
highest designated Officer (W. C. Comiskey) responded to the General Chairman
concerning a meal expense Claim similar to the one responded to by Mr. Rymer
April 15, 1980. After setting forth his Interpretation of the Agreement as it
pertained to meal expenses, Mr. Comiskey advised the General Chairman that Mr.
Rymer's Interpretation was incorrect and that he had "so advised him (Rymer)
at this time."
Subsequently, the instant Claim was filed. The Claim seeks to have
the Carrier provide a copy of the letter from Mr. Comiskey to Mr. Rymer in
which he advised him his Interpretation was incorrect. The Organization
argues their request is mandated by Rule 818 which states:
"Whenever a ruling is made by an officer of the
Company having jurisdiction over the system
affecting the interpretation of any Rule in this
Agreement, the General Chairman representing the
employees will be furnished with a copy of such
ruling."
Award Number 26411 Page 2
Docket Number SG-26083
It is the conclusion of the Board that the Claim is without merit.
It would not be a reasonable Interpretation of the Agreement to conclude that
Mr. Comiskey's communication to Mr. Rymer was a "ruling" as contemplated by
Rule 818. An internal communication under these facts has no substantive or
binding impact on the meaning of the Agreement and thus is not a "ruling".
The Ruling in this case was the August 16, 1982, letter which set forth the
Carrier's substantive position on the meal expense question to the General
Chairman.
The Organization's Interpretation is overly broad. The Carrier
offers a more reasonable Interpretation which, consistent with Rules of contract Interpretation, mus
handle Claims and grievances should be furnished the General Chairman whether
the matter was appealed to such Officer by an individual employee (which is
permissible) or an authorized Representative.
In view of the foregoing, the Claim is denied.
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.
Nancy J. D er - Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 13th day of July 1987.