Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 29210
THIRD DIVISION Docket No. SG-29097
92-3-90-3-4
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Irwin M. Lieberman when award was rendered.
(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Consolidated Rail Corporation
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim on behalf of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad
Claim on behalf' of W. T. Chrusciel, for payment of 4 hours pay at his
punitive rate of pay, account of Carrier violated the current Signalmen's
Agreement, as amended, when it failed to call him for signal trouble on his
assigned territory on March 9, 1988." Carrier file SG-24.
FINDINGS:
The Third Division of the Adjustment Board upon the whole record
and all the evidence, f_nds 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.
The record indicates that Claimant was the Signal Maintainer on the
territory on which a problem occurred on March 9, 1988. On that day there was
signal trouble in that an SC signal went from stop to approach with a train in
advance of the signal. Carrier then called out a Maintainer-Test, junior to
Claimant, who was also assigned to that territory. The Organization asserts
that Carrier erred in that it was required, under Rules contained in Appendix
"P," to make a reasonable effort to contact the Maintainer assigned to the
territory, in this case Claimant, before calling a junior employee. Hence a
four hour call is requested for Claimant.
Carrier agrees that in most instances, under normal circumstances, a
Maintainer is called to handle trouble calls, when the nature of the problem
is unknown. However, is this instance the Supervisor knew what the problem
was in advance; he recognized that the problem involved the testing of relays
Form 1 Award No. 29210
Page 2 Docket No. SG-29097
92-3-90-3-4
and the meggaring of cables. That type of work was normally within the job
assignments of a Maintainer-Test. In this case Claimant was not a qualified
Maintainer-Test. Carrier argues that there is nothing in the Agreement which
requires the calling of an unqualified employee on overtime to handle a trouble call.
The Rule which the Organization relies on, Appendix "P," only relates
to Maintainer's work. In this dispute the provisions of Rule 5-A-1 (h) are
applicable. That Rule specifies:
"Rule 5-A-1
(h) Where work is required by the Company to be
performed on a day which is not a part of any assignment, it may be performed by an available unassi
employee who will otherwise not have forty (40) hours
of work that week; in all other cases by the regular
employee. (See Appendix 'P' for trouble calls involving Maintainer's work), i.e."
The evidence indicates that the Maintainer-Test only did work encompassed by
his classification; he did no maintainer work. From the entire record, and
the facts supplied, there appears to be no Rule support for the Organization's
position; hence, the Claim must be denied.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
Attest:
Nancy J. RWFr -Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 7th day of May 1992.