Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
.award No. 31745
Docket No. MS-3139·
96-3-93-3405
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee
Herbert L. Marx, Jr. when award was rendered.
(T. J. Yetmar
_PARTIES TO DISPUTE
(Chicago and North Western Transportation Company
ST ATEMENT OF CLAIM:
"(a) The Carrier violated the current Signalmen's agreement.
between the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen and the Chicago and
Northwestern Transportation Company, especially Appendix
`A',
when on
March 20, 1992 the carrier denied work report submitted by Mr. T. J.
Yetmar in which he claimed 2 hours straight time pay for work performed
by District Signal Foreman Mr. L. C. Stearns at Montgomery, MN, M.P.
62, on the Montgomery Subdivision.
(b) The carrier should now be required to compensate Mr. T. J.
Yetmar for 2 hours at his Signal Maintainer's rate of pay as claimed on
Daily Work Report dated March 11, 1992 which was denied by the carrier
on March 20, 1992."
FINDINGS:
The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the
evidence, finds that:
The carrier or carriers and the employee or employees involved in this dispute
are respectively carrier and employee 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 were given due notice of hearing thereon.
Form 1 .ward No. 31745
Page 2 Docket No. SG-31395
96-3-93-3405
The Claimant contends that the Carrier "allowed and/or permitted District
Signal Foreman . . . to trouble-shoot PMD 11 Unit which had transferred to stand-by side
and was functioning properly." The Claimant argues that be should have been called
to perform this Signal Maintainer's work and seeks two hours' pay as a remedy.
Appendix
"A",
Article 1, second paragraph of the current Agreement reads as
follows:
"District Signal Foremen will supervise the work of employees of
lower classifications in their districts, and shall perform work coming
within the scope
of
the Signalmen's Agreement effective January 1, 1982,
when incidental to. or as a consequence
of
their duties."
The Claimant argues that the District Signal Foreman's "duties" were to
supervise; because he was alone at the time, he was not permitted to perform
Signalmen's work as "incidental" or "a consequence" to such duties.
The Board does not agree with such a narrow interpretation of the cited
provision. In this instance, the District Signal Foreman considered immediate correction
to be necessary. The time elapsed in doing so, according to the Carrier, was 25 minutes.
This activity is well within the parameters of the negotiated concept of work permitted
to be performed by District Signal Foremen.
AWARD
Claim denied.
ORDER
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that
an award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 14th day of October 1996.