For 1
TI L
T I
Award . 760
Docket
o. 7 9
0 -3-0 _ -1
The Third Division consiste ®f the regular embers and in addition Referee
Robert . Richter when award was rendered.
(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Union is Railroad ompn
STATEMENT CL
" i oalf of
the
General Committee of the Brotherhood of
Railroad ignl en on the Union Pacific (UP).
Claim on behalf of . . Hudson, for seen hours and thir minutes
t his time and one-half rate of y, account Carrier violate the
current Signal en's Agreement, particularly y Rule 1, when it
uire signal maintainer t perform construction or that
required n appreciable amount of is
time
and deprived t
Claimant f the opportune terfor this work on September and 5, 2001, t 1 .on the lint n Subdivision in State
Center, Iowa. Carrier's File .2 7 . General Chairman's File
-23 . BRS File .11-U ."
FINDINGS,:
e
ce,
fins tat:
The Third t Adjustment Board, e whole recor all the
Tcarrier or carriers and the employee or employees involved in this dispute
e respectively carrier an employee in the e meaning of the Railway Labor Act,
approved June 21,1 .
This, Division of
involved
° snt jurisdiction
dispute
For 1 and . 760
Page Docket .
0-3_0_®71
Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.
t the tine this dispute arose the Claimant was assigned s Signalman on
Construction a. 0 .
n Septemberand , 2001 the Carrier use one of its s Signal Maintainers to
remove: and install switch, underground cable and track wires on Track 1 house
track switch at State Center, I.
n September 1 , of t Organization flied this claim. asserts tat h
Carrier violated paragraph ole 1 t used a Signal Maintainer to perform
work in question. The Rule reads s follows:
" le 1- Seniority Class One
Signal Maintainer: n empassigned loyee to perform work
generally recognize as signal work o assigned district.
Signal l maintainers with an assigned district will not be
required to perform construction r requiring n
appreciable amount of their tie."
e Organization's r s argument is that the Claimant should have been used
to
the o.
The Carrier responds stating tat tin i ule ) restricts the work
that can be assigned to a Signal Maintainer: Rule 1 (k) may prohibit the Carrier
fro assignin construction k n an excessive basis, t it does not ban such
assignment.
The parties reached a agreement limits the amount of cnstti
r that requires n "appreciable t their ti e." ever, the term
"appreciable ie" it defined.
For 1
a
Award No. 37
of No. SG-37593
0--0®®1
The Board Lcks a authority to caa the Agreement.It is the
r aitio'bureto prove that the existing Agreement as
been
n violated. It
has not proves that Rule 1(k) was violate
Ii denied.
E
This Board, after consideration of the d
that an Award favorable to the Claimants) not be made.
l
ed above, hereby' orders
TI L T
Order of Third iisio
to a Chicago, Illinois, is 22nd day of September