Form 1 NATIONAL. RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Award No. 37906
Docket No. SG-38212
116-3-04-3-124

The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee James E. Mason when award was rendered.

(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE:


STATEMENT OF CLAIM:



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.
Form 1 Award No. 37906
Page 2 Docket No. SG-38212
06-3-04-3-124



This case concerns itself with a situation in which the Carrier had information relative to a signal malfunction involving a broken crossing gate. This malfunction required expedited attention to correct. The Claimant was in line for a can to perform service of this type. However, the Claimant could not be contacted in the usual and customary manner so another Signal Maintainer was dispatched to correct the malfunction.


The Organization initiated the penalty claim on behalf of the Claimant alleging two violations of Rule 16 - SUBJECT TO CALL. Its first allegation was that the Claimant was available for a call and had not been contacted at his regular calling point. The Organization's second contention was that the Claimant was entitled to a two-hour wait period before another Signal Maintainer could be called.







During the on-property handling of this case, the Carrier pointed out that attempts were, in fact, made to contact the Claimant at his tie up point, his cell phone number and on his pager. No less than three such attempts were made by the Carrier over a period of time extending from 2:14 P.M. to 3:33 P.M. Only after these three attempts to contact the Claimant failed did the Carrier dispatch the other Signal Maintainer.

Form 1 Award No. 37906
Page 3 Docket No. SG-38212
06-3-04-3-124

The Carrier additionally argued that there is no provision in Rule 16 or otherwise which requires that it must wait for two hours before contacting another employee. To require the Carrier to so wait would effectively paralyze the Carrier's operations and inhibit the prompt attention to signal problems.




The evidence of record clearly shows that attempts to contact the Claimant were made at 2:14 P.M., 3:07 P.M., and 3:33 P.M. all without success. The Board is impressed with the candid acknowledgment by the Organization that:




The instant case obviously falls within the ten percent of the time when the Claimant is not available to receive calls.


As for the argument relative to a two-hour wait before calling another employee, the Carrier's position is correct. Rule 16A does nothing more than allow an employee to be unavailable for a call for a two-hour period when he notifies Management in advance of his unavailability. The Rule does not require the Carrier to be paralyzed for a two-hour period before it can react to a signal malfunction.










This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an Award favorable to the Cllaimant(s) not be made.


                      NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                      By Order of Third Division


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 22nd day of August 2006.