Form 1 VATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 29216
THIRD DIVISION Docket No. SG-29444
92-3-90-3-369
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Eckehard Muessig when award was rendered.
(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(CSX Transportation, Inc. (former L&N)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim on behalf of the General Committee of the
Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the CSXT.L&N
Railroad:
Claim on behalf of D.B. Little, for payment of 33 hours 30 minutes of
pay at his punitive rate of pay, account of Carrier violated the current
Signalmen's Agreement, as amended, particularly, Rules 8 and 18 (f), when it
did not call him for overtime work on certain dates during March, April and
May of 1989." Carrier file 15(89-51). BRS file Case No. 8023.
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.
The Claimant, at the time of this Claim was "an assistant in training" or apprentice signal main
assertion of the organization that the Carrier was required to have the Claimant called each time th
assigned hours.
There are two basically relevant points to this dispute. First, the
Parties' Training Agreement of December 20, 1974, provides for 130 eight-hour
days of work for employees such as the Claimant. Rule 18(f) states:
"(f) Effective May 6, 1966, it is agreed that
signal maintainers when called outside regular
working ::ours to clear signal trouble or do other
emergency work will use their regularly assigned
helpers or assistants when in the judgment of the
maintainer their help is needed."
Form 1 Award No. 29216
Page 2 Docket No. SG-29444
92-3-90-3-369
Therefore, the Maintainer may decide whether he needs assistance in performing
work outside of the regular working hours.
Second, in the instant case, the Carrier instructed the Maintainer to
no longer call out his assistant unless manual labor was to be performed. The
Carrier, in its denial letter, in pertinent part stated:
. . . The Local Chairman's allegation that Mr. Brown
needed assistance on these trouble calls is selfserving at best. The Local Chairman's allegation is
not evidence that Mr. Brown actually needed help or
even that Mr. Brown said he did."
The Carrier's statement went unrebutted and, therefore, stands as
fact. On that basis, the Claim is denied.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
Attest:
ncy J. r - Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 7th day of May 1992.