Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 26929
THIRD DIVISION Docket No. SG-26810
88-3-85-3-712
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Herbert L. Marx, Jr. when award was rendered.

(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE:


STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim on behalf of the General Committee of the Brother-
hood of Railroad Signalmen on the Seaboard System Railroad (formerly Louisville and Nashville).

On behalf of Signalman J. M. Redman for 5 hours and 45 minute's, at his pro rata rate of pay, account of Carrier violated the Signalmen's Agreement, particularly Rules allowed Signal Foreman P. E. Kirkpatrick to drive company van from Nashville, Tennessee to Corbin, Kentucky. Carrier File: 15-60 (85-5)L."

FINDINGS:

The Third Division of the Adjustment Board upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.

This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.



Signal Gang MI5 was relocating from Nashville to Corbin on July 21, 1984. The Claimant, a Signalman who was a member of the Gang, requested permission to be assigned the work of driving the signal van from Nashville to Corbin. His Foreman refused the request and drove the van himself. The Claimant then drove his personal vehicle, while under pay.

The Organization argues that the Claimant was improperly denied the work involved in driving the van and seeks pay therefor, citing Rules 3, 7, and 60, which read as follows:
Form 1 Award No. 26929
Page 2 Docket No. SG-26810
88-3-85-3-712













The Organization's Scope Rule (Rule 1) includes no direct reference to the operation of vehicles. Rule 60 does contemplate such work and provides for pay for such assignment. The Organization has failed to show, however, that the work under review here (not within the specific duties in the Scope Rule) is work which is exclusively performed by Signalmen and which may not or has not been performed by Foremen. Such cannot be found to violate the prohibition of Rule 3 that a Further, Rule 60, as argued by the Carrier, constitutes a pay rule, rather than a grant of exclusive right of "operating" a vehicle.

This is not a case of first impression. Third Division Award 10008 involves the same parties. While the fact situation therein is somewhat different, that Award states as follows:



To the same effect are Third Division Awards 19822 and 23835, both of which involve the same Organization as here and deny claims concerning operation of trucks by Signal Form 1 Award No. 26929
Page 3 Docket No. SG-26810
88-3-85-3-712






                          By Order of Third Division


Attest:
      Nancy J1p;'Ve r - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of March 1988.