SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NO. 605
PARTIES ) Chicago and North Western Railway Company
TO THE ) and
DISPUTE ) Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
QUESTION
AT ISSUE: Claim of the General Committee on the Chicago
and North Western Railway Company that:
(a) Carrier is in violation of the
February 7, 1965 Agreement in paying Mr. 14. A.
Faldet the top Assistant Signal Maintainer's
rate ($3.4106) instead of the Signal Main-
tainer's rate ($3.7837) when it abolished the
Signal Maintainer's position at Camp Douglas,
Wisconsin, and Mr. Faldet had to displace the
Assistant Signal Maintainer's position at
(b) The Carrier now be required to compensate Mr. Faldet the difference between the
top Assistant Signal Maintainer's .rate ($3.4106)
and the Signal Maintainer's rate ($3.7837),
which should be hj,s prcc:ec~_ed zate under tr<e
Februarx 7, "3r~5 Agreement. This payment to
Commenc4: 60
d;-~YS prloY· t.4'
-'..he date
(7^
this caim
(5/17/71) and, continue until Mr. Fa1dfit's pro-
tected rate is corrected.
(c) The Carrier should also correct its
error shown on the protected rate sheet of
February 25, 1966, page 1, of the Twin Cities
District and show Mr. Faldet's protected rate
as Signal Maintainer.
OPINION
OF BOARD: claimant, a regularly assigned Assistant Signal Main
tainer at Camp Douglas, bid and obtained a temporary
position as Signal Maintainer early in 1964. On October 1, 1964,
he occupied that position, as he did for several more years.
The issue is whether Claimant held a regularly
assigned position as Signal Maintainer or as Assistant Signal
A·IazD
::o.
3 q-3
Case _,o. CG-36=,7
:_aintainer
o:1
October ', ;:
~~_.
Determination of this question
low
establishes ifiethez he is protected at the lo-·er or the hither
rate.
Award ~To. 207 of this Committce is directly in
point. There, too, an employee bid into a higher-rated temporary position in June, 1963, and held it until 1957. In
that Award the Committee held that the claimant was protected
cn'_y at -the '.over-rated position.
Nothing in the record provides persuasive reason
not to follow the Committee's precedent. indeed, Rule 32 of
the schedule agreement in this case states that "vacancies
resulting from temporary absence of regular assignee will be
bulletined as temporary position." (Underlining added.)
Claimant occupied the Signal Maintainer's position not as the
regular asignee of it. Consequently, he does not meet the
requirements
of
Article IV, Section 1, as one holding a "regularly assigned" position, other than his regular assignment
as Assistant Signal 4aintainer.
Award 207 must be held more relevant under the
February 7 Agreement than Award 10013 of the Third Division,
cited by the organization. In that case, for holiday pay
purposes, an employee filling a temporary vacancy was deemed
regularly assigned to it. Aside from other considerations,
however, it is noteworthy that the employee there held no
other regularly assigned position, his own having been abolished,
which was the reason he displaced on the temporary assignment.
in the instant case Claimant was a regularly
assigned Assistant Signal maintainer, holding the higher Position on a temporary basis, despite its duration. He was properly protected, therefore, as an Assistant Signal Maintainer.
ATIIARD
Claim denied.
Milton Friedman
Neutral Member
December/K 1972
T9ashington, D. C.
-2-
J
.. 3ER~