BEFORE PUBLIC LAW BOARD N0. 4433
BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD SIGNALMEN
and
SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY
Case No. 16
organization's Statement Of Claim:
Claim that the Carrier violated the current agreement, as amended,
when it added note to Bulletin No. S-86-2 which required employees
assigned to certain bulletined positions to furnish their addresses
and telephone numbers in the immediate vicinity of the headquarters
point.
Findings:
On February 3, 1986, Carrier issued a bulletin listing vacancies.
A note accompanied two of the positions, specifying that employees
assigned to these positions must provide Carrier with their address
and phone number in the vicinity of the headquarters point. The
organization thereafter filed a claim, challenging Carrier's
inclusion
of a residency requirement on the job bulletin.
This Board has reviewed the record in this case, and we find that
the Carrier acted within its power to promote rules and guidelines and
exercise its managerial prerogative within the boundaries of the
collective bargaining agreement when it included a requirement of
residence on the job bulletins in question. There is nothing in the
agreement which restricts the Carrier from including the residency
requirement in this case.
In Third Division Award 3992, the Board upheld the Carrier's
right to require residency within the vicinity of the headquarters
point. The Board stated:
It is true that the Agreement does not specifically
require a signal maintainer to live at or near his:
headquarters. We think that the assignment of a
headquarters inferentially requires it. But
whether it
does or not, the contract being silent on the subject,
1
it is the province of management to require it. It had
been the practice of the Carrier on this railroad to
require it and the record shows that Wallace knew it.
We do not think the requirement was unreasonable when
the nature of the work is considered
. The operation of the railroad being the function
of management, and there being no Agreement provision
limiting its action with respect thereto, its decision
that signal maintainers must live at or in proximity to
assigned headquartes is controlling.
The record reveals th&t requiring residence within the vicinity
of the headquarters point is still a widely accepted practice of this
carrier. it violates no rules of contract, nor any legal
requirements. Therefore, the claim must be denied.
Award:
Claim denied.
Eleut~ral Member
k4
Carrier member Organization Member
Date:
AZ.~