Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Award No. 32527
Docket No. SG-32861
98-3-96-3-211
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee
Elizabeth C. Wesman when award was rendered.
(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(CSX Transportation, Inc. (former Baltimore and
( Ohio Railroad Company)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
"Claim on behalf of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of
Railroad Signalmen on the CSX Transportation Company (B&O):
Claim on behalf of F. E. Clawson for payment of the difference
between his current pay rate and the Signal Foreman's pay rate, and for
establishment of Signal Foreman's seniority, beginning April 24, 1995,
account Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement. particularly
Agreement No. S-069-87, when it did not advertise a vacant Signal
Foreman position at the Savannah Signal Shop. Carrier's File No. 15(95188). BRS File Case No. 9805-B
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 Award No. 32527
Page 2 Docket No. SG-32861
98-3-96-3-211
The Claimant in this case was assigned to a position in the Lead Signalman/
Signalman class at Carrier's Consolidated Signal Shop. On April 24, 1995, the
employee assigned to the B&O allocated Foreman's position vacated that position. The
Carrier did not bulletin the position. The Organization presented a claim on June 5,
1995 alleging that the Carrier violated the 1987 Signal Shop Implementing Agreement
when it did not advertise the vacant Foreman's position. The Carrier responded that,
while Section 4 of the Implementing Agreement provided that three Foreman positions
would be allocated for initial filling, nothing in the Agreement required that Carrier
maintain all three positions.
A careful review of the record indicates that nothing in the Implementing
Agreement signed by the Parties requires that Carrier maintain its force at the level
initially established. The Organization cited Section 25 of the Agreement in support of
its position. That section provides that in the event of abolishment of positions or force
reductions, the position of the junior employee in the class of work involved will be
abolished first. In the instant case, however, the employee formerly occupying the
position voluntarily vacated it, removing the necessity of Carrier's selecting the position
occupied by the junior employee for abolishment. Accordingly, the provisions of Section
25 are inapplicable.
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 25th day of March 1998.