"Claim on behalf of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the CSX Transportation Company (B&O):
Claim on behalf of W.R. Dellinger and W.B. McCune for reestablishment of the Leading Signal Maintain Pennsylvania, and for payment of all compensation lost as a result of the abolishment of the Leading Signal Maintainer position on April 16, 1996, and the resulting displacements, account Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement, particularly Rule 63 and Agreement No. 15-1894, when it abolished the Leading and established a Signal Maintainer position at Connellsville, Pennsylvania." Carrier's File No. 15(96-204). BRS File Case No. 10222B&O.
This claim filed on May 7, 1996 alleges that Carrier violated Rule 63 when it abolished a Leading Signal Maintainer position at Rockwood, Pennsylvania, and established a Signal Maintainer position at Connellsville, approximately 75 miles distant. Claimants are employees affected by these changes.
Correspondence on the property reveals that the maintenance team at Connellsville was increased in size to improve Carrier's ability to perform additional anticipated preventive maintenance on the westerly limits of the seniority district. At the same time the Leading Signal Maintainer position was abolished in Rockwood due to a decrease in the forecasted need for work on the east end of the seniority district. The Organization never disputed Carrier's contentions that, as a result of this action, (1) there were no positions lost nor any displacements to system teams or furloughs, and (2) Claimants did not suffer financially.
The Organization contends that, because Claimant McCune had his position designation changed from Lead Signal Maintainer to Signal Maintainer at Rockwood without a change in job duties, and Claimant Dellinger was forced to move to the new position in Connellsville, Carrier violated the provisions of Rule 63. Carrier asserts that it has the managerial prerogative to decide what amount of manpower is needed to perform work and where and when the work will be done, and that the Organization pointed to nothing in the Agreement restricting its action in this case.
A careful review of the record convinces the Board that the Organization failed to sustain its burden of proving that Carrier violated Rule 63 or any other provision of the Agreement. There is no evidence establishing what either Claimant did in his position at Rockwood, nor the job duties of their current positions. Thus, the Organization failed to show that the new job created covered "relatively the same class of work" as the abolished position, but at a lower rate of pay. Neither is there evidence Form 1 Page 3