"Claims on behalf ofthe General Committee of the Brotherhood ofRailroad Signalmen on the Kansas City Southern Railroad (KCS):
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.
These claims filed on June 10 and 15, 1996, respectively, allege that Carrier violated Rule 32(b) by first abolishing Relief Signal Maintainer positions in May 1996 and then requiring Claimant Francis to provide vacation relief for a Signal Maintainer for a two week period in June 1996, and bypassing Claimant Headrick from such one week vacation Relief assignment in favor of another employee. They request compensation at the higher rate and reassignment to the abolished positions.
The record reflects that Carrier abolished 13 monthly rated Relief Signal Maintainer positions and created a new 12 person signal gang with one new Signal Maintainer for the employees involved. The cause for such change was a decline in work necessitating a reshuffling of accounting expense allocations. The Organization voiced dismay at the loss of such positions, but did not file a claim protesting such action. The instant claims were filed when one former Relief Signal Maintainer was asked to cover a two week vacation relief position, during which he would receive the Signal Maintainer Form 1 Page 3
rate of pay, and one former Relief Signal Maintainer was bypassed for a one week vacation relief position.
The Organization contends that Carrier violated Rule 32(b) by abolishing the Relief Signal Maintainer position at a higher monthly rate of pay, and creating new Signalman positions at a lower rate to perform the same work. Carrier argues that the Organization failed to meet its burden of proving a prima facie violation, because since the claim is about the actual filling of relief vacancies, not about the abolishment of the positions, and Carrier is within its rights to select a gang member to fill a relief assignment.
A careful review of the record convinces the Board that the Organization failed to sustain its burden of proving that Carrier violated Rule 32(b) or any other provision of the Agreement. There is no evidence establishing what either Claimant did in his former position of Relief Signal Maintainer, nor the job duties of their current Signalman positions. Thus, the Organization failed to show that the new job created covered "the same class of work" as the abolished position but at a lower rate of pay. Further, as noted above, this claim does not protest the abolition of the positions and nothing in the record indicates that Carrier acted inappropriately in abolishing the Relief Signal Maintainer positions. Given that no Relief positions existed in June 1996, the Organization failed to show that Carrier violated the Agreement by selecting Claimant Francis or not selecting Claimant Headrick to perform the temporary short term vacation Relief Signal Maintainer assignments.