C:\MYDOCU~1\SCHEDU~2\3-28224.htm

Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 28224 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MS-28485 89-3-88-3-275 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Herbert L. Marx, Jr. when award was rendered. (George M. Kerrigan PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

(CSX Transportation, Inc. (former SCL)

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "The petitioning claimant while an employee of the CSX with a Top Rated Assistant Signalman's rating transferred his employment from the Chesapeake and Ohio division to the Seaboard Coast Line (SCL) division and while so employed was paid by SCL as an Assistant Signalman rather than as a Top Rated Assistant in violation of the then Signalman's Agreement, particularly Rule 8, Section B(4 At all times the claimant remained an employee of the CSX and his rating and training was approved by his principal employer, CSX, and was not subject to change or diminution by an agent or subdivision of the principal employer. Therefore, the undersigned claimant desires to submit the question of the failure of the carrier to pay him in accordance with his Top Rated Assistants to the Adjustment 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.

Prior to the employment period for which the Claimant seeks additional pay in this Claim, he had Ohio Railroad Company. He was furloughed from both positions. Thereafter, he was hired by CSX Transportation, Inc. (formerly Seaboard Coast Line Railroad) on March 23, 1987, as an Assistant Signalman, in which he served until October 22, 1987. He was paid according to the applicable wage schedule, starting at the lowest point in the wage progression. The Claimant argues that, in view of his previous training and experience with other properties Form 1 Award No. 28224 Page 2 Docket No. MS-28485 89-3-88-3-275 paid at the highest rate for Assistant Signalman. The Claimant notes he completed the required training program in February, 1985, and cites Rule No. 8, Section B (4).

Rule 8, Section

reads as follows:

"SECTION B - New Employees

1. On or after March 1, 1975, applicants will be employed as assistants. The Carrier may, at any time during the first sixty calendar days, reject an application for employment and remove the employee f service. An assistant retained in the service following the sixty (60) day probationary period will the provisions pertaining thereto as hereinafter outlined.

2. Upon entering service, these assistants will be required to sign a statement to the effect that they fully understand the requirement.to enter the training program and that they will comply with all provisions contained in this Rule 8.

4. Upon successfully completing all courses and examinations of the training program, an assistant must bid for and except promotion to a permanent bulletined position in the next higher class if a v or new position is open. If no position is open, the assistant will continue at the highest assistant's rate of pay until promotion becomes available. If there are two (2) or more assistants who have completed the training program, they will be promoted in seniority order. An employee who refuses promotion shall forfeit his seniority and rights and be considered as having resigned from service.

x

6. The assistants in the training program will be paid the next higher rate of pay applicable at the time they conclude each 130 eight-hour day period of training." The Carrier properly notes that separate Agreements have been maintained between organizations a The Carrier contends that Rule 8 does not apply to service on other than the former Seaboard Coast Line. Form 1 Award No. 28224 Page 3 Docket No. MS-28485 89-3-88-3-275 The Board concurs that the Rule does not suggest that training on a different railroad under a separate Agreement is to be applicable here. The Carrier contends that the Claimant was fully aware of his status as a "new employee" when hired in 1987. The Board has no basis to extend coverage of the Rule. A W A R D Claim denied. NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD By Order of Third Division Attest: Nancy J er - Executive Secretary Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 4th day of December 1989.