"Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

(1) The Carrier violated the Agreement and

established past practice when it uni

laterally implemented `New Safety Rule, J(3)A'

and subsequently required Maintenance of Way

employes to purchase and wear steel toed boots

(Carrier's File 013.31-398).

(2) As a consequence of the aforesaid violation,

the Carrier shall rescind 'New Safety Rule,

J(3)A' and '... E. L. Black, S. S. No. 460-76

3322, Track Laborer; R. D. Lamont, S.S. No. 430

86-0430, Extra Gang Foreman; R. A. Norwood, S.S.

No. 464-62-0037, Section Foreman; R. Oney, S.S.

No. 446-92-1177, Section Foreman and Guy Bickham,

S.S. No. 439-02-9823, Machine Operator and all the

rest of the Maintenance of Way Employees all over

the whole Railroad, that are currently required

to obtain "Special Safety Shoes" by the Carrier's

"NEW SAFETY RULE, J (3) A" with regard to mandatory

"Steel toed boots, six (6) inch high tops, lace up

type and sturdy soles: for the difference in what

they had to pay for their new "Steel Toed Work

Boots: and the Twenty-five (25) dollar allowance,

that the Carrier has so graciously granted them

toward a pair of boots that average about Ninety

six (96) dollars per pair."

"RULE J(3)(A). - ALL EMPLOYEES, EXCEPT THOSE WORKING EXCLUSIVELY IN OFFICES, REGARDLESS OF LOCATION, SUBJECT TO FOOT INJURY, MUST WEAR AN APPROVED STEEL TOED SAFETY SHOED WHILE ON DUTY. SHOES MUST BE AT LEAST SIX (6) INCHES HIGH, LACE TYPE OF STURDY CONSTRUCTION THAT PROVIDES ANKLE SUPPORT AND HAVE SOLES THICK ENOUGH TO GIVE GOOD TRACTION AND WITHSTAND PUNCTURE FROM SHARP OBJECTS. SHOES OF CANVAS MATERIAL, HEELS OF EXCESSIVE HEIGHT, SOLES THAT DO NOT HAVE A DISTINCT SEPARATION BETWEEN THE HEEL AND SOLE MUST NOT BE WORN. LACES MUST BE TIED AND WHEN OVERSHOES ARE WORN, THEY MUST BE BUCKLED."

"2. Employes are required to wear suitable footwear which provides ankle support with soles thick enough to give good traction and withstand punctures from sharp material. Shoe laces must be tied. Hells that are `run over' and shoes that are made of cloth are prorespectively."

"685. Employes are required to wear suitable footwear which provides ankle support with soles thick enough to give good traction and withstand punctures from sharp material. Shoe laces must be tied. Heels that are `run over' and

In this claim, the organization seeks to rescind the new safety Rule, as well as compensate all Maintenance of Way employes who purchased safety shoes for the difference between the $25 allowance granted by Carrier and the amount that they were required to pay.

The organization does not argue that employes should not wear safety shoes, only that Carrier should pay for them, as it does hard hats, goggles, and other protective gear. it contends that Carrier unilaterally changed a working condition, failing to give written notice (which is required under rule 44) to the organization.

Carrier finds no support for the Organization's claim in the Agreement, contending that Rule 35 relates only to tools, while Rule 43 (dealing with all memoranda of agreement, interpretations, and letters of understanding) makes no mention of safety shoes.

Rule 44 (Notice of Change agreement) is not relevant, since no change occurred.

Carrier also sees a difference between objects used only on the job (such as safety glasses and hard hats) and items such as shoes, which can be worn by an employe at any time. It contends that safety shoes have been required on the property for over forty years.

Upon a complete review of the record, this board is unable to find support for the Organization's contention that with the issuance of its new Safety Rule, Carrier changed a term and condition of employment contained in the parties' Schedule Agreement. That document is devoid of any mention of safety shoes as a requirement. Thus, no Rule 44 notice was required in this instance. Other Rules cannot be said to cover this issue.

In evaluating whether Carrier's new Rule should be rescinded, the basic test that must be applied is whether it is reasonable,

that is, whether its requirements are reasonably related to the duties of the employes covered by the Rule. Based on this standard, it cannot be said that a requirement that safety shoes be worn by Maintenance of Way employes is unreasonable.

The real question here, as the organization acknowledges, is who is to be responsible for their payment. Carrier has provided an allowance and has given employes the discretion to purchase their shoes wherever they choose. That is not an unreasonable act.

A W A R D