Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.

Ellis was part of a small group of employees, four Trackmen and two Truck Operators, who were removing and replacing crossbucks at grade crossings during the period in question. He was one of the Trackmen. The group removed metal poles, created crossbucks, attached stop signs, installed reflector strips, and so on. It was part of a gang which had a Foreman and two Assistant Foremen although these supervisors may not have been in the area where Ellis' group was working. Ellis was designated as the Employee in Charge (EIC). He contends that because he "briefed" others in his group, "directed" their work, and was responsible for "safety" and reporting the `°payroll," he was in effect serving as a Foreman and should have received the Foreman's rate of pay.

The record shows that the EIC designation is given to employees who are expected to assure employee safety, who are expected to make certain safety requirements are being observed. Such safety responsibility is not the exclusive province of Foremen. The record also shows that Timekeepers and others report on the hours worked by employees. The fact that Ellis was. asked to make such a report for his group's hours for payroll purposes does not make him a Foreman.

Ellis did "brief" the group on the work at hand. Although the evidence is far from clear on this point, it appears he worked alongside the other Trackmen. He alleges he "directed" the other people in his group, but he seems to have been functioning as something akin to a "lead man." There is nothing in the record from the other employees, nor indeed from Ellis himself, as to the nature and scope of the work instructions he may have issued. One Foreman and two Assistant Foremen were available to the group if any difficulties arose. True, employees should be paid the appropriate rate for the work they are performing. That is plainly suggested by Rule 28. But given the circumstances before the Board, it cannot be said that Ellis was serving as a Foreman during the period in question. His claim lacks merit.

AWARD