"Claim on behalf of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen of the Southern Railway Systems Railroad:
Claim on behalf of Signalmen F. H. Lett, assigned to Signal Gang #589, assigned work days Monday thru Thursday, 10 hours each day, for the following:
(1) Carrier violated the Signalmen's Agreement, particularly Rule 41 and Rule 20, when they failed or refused to allow Signalman F. H. Lett to report to his bulletined assigned position on signal Gang 589 effective September 25, 1989 as shown on bulletin SS-8919, and did not pay him for the extr incurred while working away from his bulletined assigned position for approximately 14 days.
(2) Carrier (sic) now be required to compensate Signalman F. H. Lett for 5 hours travel time at his straight time rate of pay or $70.65 and reimburse him for additional mileage he had to drive while working off of his assignment in the amount of 300 miles at 25 cents per mile or $75.00. Claim is to be in addition to any other expense or travel time he has been paid for this additional travel time and mileage expense he incurred while working off of his bulletined assigned position." General Chairman's File No. SR3789. Carrier's File No. SG-ATLA 89
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. Form 1 Award No. 29491
On September 13, 1989 the Carrier issued Bulletin SS-89-19 by which it assigned the Claimant to the position of Temporary Signalman, Gang 589, effective September 25, 1989. On November 20, 1989 the instant claim was filed by the General Chairman at Danville, Kentucky on grounds that " ..for some reason (the Claimant) was not allowed to report to his bulletined position (on Gang 589) until October 9, 1989, (which was) some 14 days (after) the effective date of the assignment." According to the claim the Claimant suffered hardships and expenses which he would not have suffered had he worked the position to which he had bid, and to which he had been assigned, effective September 25, 1989. The claim requested, therefore, relief for travel time and mileage for the time the Claimant had worked "...away from his bulletined assigned position" in late September and early October of 1989.
According to the organization the Carrier had violated Rules 20 and 41 of the operant Agreement when it had not assigned the Claimant to Gang 589 on the effective date of his assignment to that position. The Rules at bar read as follows, in pertinent part:
The Manager of Labor Relations at Roanoke, Virginia, denied the claim on grounds that at the time the Claimant had been awarded the position on Gang 589 he had been working on Gang 583 on a project in Harrisonburg, Virginia. And "...due to the fact (that) Gang 583 had only a foreman and four men, it was necessary to hold (the Claimant) until the project they were working on was completed." The Carrier argues that it was permissible to hold the Claimant on Gang 583 under Rule 20(c) and that he was held only four working days beyond September 29, 1989. The latter was 20 days from the September 9, 1989 date of the close of the bulletin in question.
The argument by the Carrier in this case is that the intent of Rule 20(c) permitted it to hold the Claimant in Gang 583 beyond September 29, 1989. Evidently, the parties made allowance for exceptions to the application of the twenty (20) day provision in this Rule as the language at Rule 20(0) clearly shows. The only issue is whether the "special circumstances" as outlined by the Carrier represent reasonable application of this exception. The Carrier states that a project was started and needed the presence of the Claimant, as well as others, for completion. The Organization's response to that, best outlined in its appeal letter of June 21, 1990, is that:
The Board notes that the organization does not dispute the fact that a project was started by Gang 583, that a foreman and four Signalmen were needed to complete it by October 5, 1989, nor that the Claimant was one of those Signalmen. Form 1 Award No. 29491
While it is true that the Carrier could possibly have found a replacement for the Claimant on that Gang for the several days in question beyond September 29, 1989, there is no information provided by the organization, which would have been a minimal requirement of its burden of proof as moving party to this claim, that such other Signal personnel were even available at the time in question. Nor can the Board conclude that even if other signalmen were available, that it would have been a requirement of the Carrier to have gone to them in this particular instance to replace the Claimant. In view of the facts of record before the Board in this case the Carrier's interpretation of Rule 20(c) of the Agreement was not unreasonable and the claim will be denied.