Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 27597
THIRD DIVISION Docket No. SG-27348
88-3-86-3-622
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:
(Chicago 6 North Western Transportation Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
Case No. 1
"Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen, on the Chicago 6 North Wes
(a) On or about July 5, 1985, on bulletin.U7 the Carrier violated the
current Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen's Agreement, as revised, especially
Rule 62 when it assigned J. A. Horad, Asst. Signal Mtnr. to the position of
Asst. Signal Mtnr. Job I#007-19 Canal St. Chicago.
(b) The Carrier now be required starting July 22, 1985, the date of
transfer, as stated on bulletin N7 compensate Mr. Horad at the Singal Mtnrs.
rate of pay, or to anyone else that holds this position. This is a continuing
claim until this position is re-classified to its rightful classification of
Signal Maintainer Canal St." General Chairman file: G-AV-58. Carrier File:
79-85-14
Case No. 2
"Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad
Signalmen, on the Chicago 6 North Western Transportation Company, that:
(a) On or about October 1st and 5th, 1985 the carrier violated the
current Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen's Agreement, as revised, especially
Rule 62 when it abolished three (3) Signalmen's positions, Job Nos. 005-06,
009-46 and 006-22 and rebulletined them at Asst. Signalmen.
(b) Carrier now be required, starting November 4, 1985, the date of
transfer as stated on Bulletin N10 compensate Mr. Hoard, Mr. Carver and Mr.
Slatter, at the Signalmen's rate of pay, or to anyone else that holds these
positions. This is a continuing claim until these positions are reclassified
to its rightful classification of Signalmen on the St. Francis, Wis. crew,
Wis. Travel Crew and the Nelson, 111. crew." General Chairman file: G-AV-66
Carrier file: 79-85-17
Form 1 Award No. 27597
Page 2 Docket No. SG-27348
88-3-86-3-622
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.
Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.
Rules 2(g) and 3 provide for two classifications as follows:
"Signalman or Signal Maintainer [Class 2]: A man qualified by experience and training and
Signal Maintainer will be so classified. When assigned to the
maintenance of certain section, shop or plant, the classification will be Signal Maintainer; when as
the classification will be Signalmen.
Assistant Signalman or Assistant Signal
Maintainer [Class 3]: An employee in training for a position of Signalman, working with a
Signalman, will be classified as an Assistant Signalman or Assistant Signal Maintainer, according to
the man under whom working."
Rules 31(a) and 47(a) provide for 24 months of training for Assistant
Signalmen, after which such employees are promoted and establish seniority in
Class 2.
Rule 35(f) concerns maintenance of status as Signalman, as follows:
"Employees holding seniority in Class (2) who cannot displace in that class will be permitted to
subsequent to which their status for pay purposes will be the
same as a signalman. Employees who do not and/or cannot exercise seniority rights will be considered
eleventh (11th) day after having been affected by a job abolishment or displacement."
Rule 59 reads as follows:
"Established positions: Established positions will not be
discontinued and new ones created under a different title covering relatively the same class of work
Form 1 Award No. 27597
Page 3 Docket No. SG-27348
88-3-86-3-622
Because of a realignment of forces owing to attrition, a number of
Assistant Signalmen positions were reclassified to Class (2) positions to accomodate existing Signal
were hired as Assistant Signalmen, in keeping with the Rules quoted above.
The Organization argues that this violated Rule 59 in that "established
positions" were "discontinued . . . for the purpose of reducing rates of pay
or evading application of these rules." The undisputed factual record lends
no support to this view. The Claimants were treated as provided in the Rules
for newly hired employees, and there is no showing of any attempt by the Carrier to discontinue posi
Third Division Award No. 20976, involving the same parties, is to
similar effect. That Award states as follows:
"In order to prevail in its principal contentions it is
necessary, first, for the Organization to show that the change
was made for one of the prohibited reasons, that is, reducing
rates of pay or evading application of the rules . . . Obviously, the Organization must produce more
that Carrier acted for the purpose of evading the application
of the Rules. It must introduce evidence of such a purpose
and on the record before the Board it has failed to do so."
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
Attest.
Nancy J -Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois this 27th day of October 1988.