Form 1                 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

THIRD DIVISION

Award No. 43865 Docket No. SG-44825 20-3-NRAB-00003-180263

The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Paul Betts when award was rendered.

(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (

(Union Pacific Railroad Company

STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

“Claim on behalf of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the Union Pacific Railroad:

Claim on behalf of J.A. Bailey, D.N. Huppert, J.M. Krehbiel, M.E. Lenling, J.J. Pearson, M.L. Pohlman, B.R. Schmidt and C.J. Smith, for compensation at their respective (051) half-time rates of pay for all hours each Claimant performed work on Zone 4, from October 17, 2016, continuing until they are returned to Zone 1, or the Zone 2 and Zone 3 employees are no longer improperly performing work on Zone 1, account Carrier violated the current Signalmen’s Agreement, particularly Rules 26, 34, and 65, when, on October 17, 2016, Carrier worked Zone 2 and Zone 3 employees on Zone 1 while the Claimants were involuntarily furloughed. Carrier's File No. 1677049. General Chairman's File No. N 0084. BRS File Case No. 15776-UP.”

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.

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

At the time this dispute arose, the eight Claimants were involuntarily furloughed from Zone 1 and were working in Zone 4 in the Carrier’s Signal Department. The instant dispute arose when the Organization alleged the Carrier improperly directed employees from Zones 2 and 3 to complete work on Zone 1, where the Claimants were involuntarily furloughed, thereby violating Rule 26 of the Agreement.

In relevant part, Rule 26 states the following:

“… Zone gangs may be at any location performing any agreement work. Zone gangs performing work on its own zone and on a seniority district where there are involuntarily furloughed employees will be headquartered or abolished at the written request of the General Chairman. Zone gangs will not work across zone lines if employees are involuntarilyfurloughed in the senioritydistrict where the work islocated. If a zone gang is performing work off of its zone, the employees of that gang will receive one and one-half time pay, up until the employees of the gangqualify fordouble-time,atwhichtimethey willbepaidatthedoubletime rate.”

In summary, the Organization argues that the Carrier violated Rule 26 when it directed Zone 2 and Zone 3 employees to work in Zone 1, where the Claimants were involuntarily furloughed.

Insummary,theCarrierarguesa)noworkwasperformedby theZone2orZone 3 employees on a Zone 1 seniority district that had furloughed employees. As a result, there was no violation of Agreement Rule 26, b) the Claimants were all Class 2 employees(AssistantSignalman)andwerenotqualifiedfortheClass1work(Electronic Technician/Inspector) performed in Zone 1, c) the Organization failed to satisfy its burden of proof, and d) the remedy demanded by the Organization is not based upon the Agreement.

The Board has carefully reviewed the record here. There is no dispute that Zone 2 and Zone 3 employeesworked inZone 1while theClaimants remained on involuntary furlough in Zone 1. What is in dispute is whether the work performed by the Zone 2 and 3 employees occurred in a Zone 1 seniority district where the Claimants were furloughed.

The Claimants held seniority in either the 4502 (Wyoming) or 4503 (Old Kansas) seniority district, and the Carrier argues that evidence provided by the Organization, which included employee statements, indicated the work was performed in the 4501 (Nebraska) seniority district. As a result, the Carrier argues there was no work performed by the Zone 2 or Zone 3 employees in a Zone 1 seniority district whereby the Claimants were furloughed, and therefore no violation of Rule 26. The Board respectfullydisagrees. Althoughtheemployeestatementsprovidedby theOrganization indicated most of the work being performed in the 4501 seniority district (Nebraska), statementsby employeesBitoniandMorenoindicatedworkalsobeingperformedinthe 4502 (Wyoming) seniority district.

The Carrier also argued that the Claimants were Class 2 employees (Assistant Signalmen) and were therefore not qualified to perform the Class 1 work (Electronic Technician/Inspector) performed by the Zone 2 and Zone 3 employees in Zone 1. To support its argument, the Carrier provided the Board with Third Division Award 42238. Uponreview,the BoardnotesthatRule 26isvoid any specific language detailing an exemption based upon Class. Furthermore, Third Division Award 42238, contains different fact patterns and the Board does not find it controlling here. The instant case has its own set of facts and circumstances, which make it unique and set it apart from the cited offering.

Based upon the above, the Board finds the Organization met its burden of proof and sustains the claim in part. The record indicates that Zone 2 or Zone 3 employees performed work in the 4502 seniority district on the following dates in 2016: October 17, 18, 19,20, 24, 25,26, 27, and November 7,8, and 9. All Claimants holding a seniority date in the 4502 seniority district are to be compensated at their respective (051) halftime rates of pay for all hours worked in Zone 4 on the following dates in 2016: October 17, 18, 19, 20, 24, 25, 26, 27, and November 7, 8, and 9.

Although the Board may not have repeated every item of documentary evidence or all the arguments presented, we have considered all the relevant evidence and arguments presented in rendering this Award.

AWARD

Claim sustained in accordance with the Findings.

ORDER

This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimant(s) be made. The Carrier is ordered to make the Award effective on or before 30 days following the postmark date the Award is transmitted to the parties.

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD By Order of Third Division

Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day of January 2020.