The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Howard A. Johnson when award was rendered.
SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 20, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'
DEPARTMENT, AFL-CIO (Carmen)
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: The Chicago and Eastern Illinois Railroad, hereinafter called the carrier, maintains a large car shop facility at Danville, Illinois, at which point the carrier keeps an overtime board where employes who desire overtime work, list their name. The two carmen named in part 1 of the claim were first out on the overtime board. When there is overtime work, the carrier does not have to go through the whole seniority roster and call each man to see if he wants to work overtime. The foreman merely checks the overtime board, sees who is listed as the next in line to be called, and calls them in the order listed.
On Friday, September 27, 1963, at 2:00 P. M. in the afternoon, Mr William Blanton, carman, and vice chairman of the local committee at Danville, was called in to Mr. Hughes' office, the general car foreman, and told that carmen would be needed for overtime work both Saturday and Sunday This was at least one and one-half hours before quitting time of the claimants that the carrier knew there would be overtime work for carmen.
Entitlement to perform service is dependent upon the availability of he who claims his services should have been utilized. As set forth in Carrier's Statement of Facts, there was insufficient time to contact all the employes necessary to perform the work in question prior to quitting time on September 27, 1963. Claimant Lowe had left the carrier's premises before Mr. Hughes had an opportunity to contact him. Mr. Lowe did not have a telephone in his home; therefore, carrier had no alternative but to consider him unavailable.
In summary, the record is void of any evidence of an unequal distribution of overtime work in contravention of the provisions of Rule 6 of the agreement, Claimant Lucas did not have a contractual right to share the work in question and carrier was unable to contact Claimant Lowe because he did not have a telephone in his home. He was, therefore, unavailable.
The instant claim is void of merit and should, therefore, be declined. We respectfully request the Board to so hold.
FINDINGS: The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:
The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employe 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.
The claim is that Rule 6 was violated when carmen employed elsewhere than at the car shop at Danville were called for overtime instead of the Claimants, who were next in line on the overtime board.
There is no provision in the Rules for overtime boards, but such boards are maintained on which employes desiring overtime list their names. Although the Claimants were not called for this overtime work on September 28, 29 and 30 they apparently submitted a regular time claim on October 9 which was denied on October 28 in a letter stating:
This is challenged by the Employes as an insufficient denial under Article V of the National Agreement of August 21, 1954. We find nothing in the applicable agreements specifying requirements for the denial of time claims submitted; but in any event the fact that time was not worked is obviously a sufficient reason for denying an ordinary time claim. Whether the Claim-
ants should have been called for the overtime work was an entirely different matter which was thereafter on November 20, 1963, presented on Claimants' behalf by the local chairman pursuant to Discipline and Grievance Rule 30.
The record indicates that this claim was denied on December 16 by a letter stating in part as follows:
During the handling on the property other reasons were given for denial of the claim which need not be considered.
The record indicates that at about 3:00 P. M., near the close of the shift on Friday, the general car foreman was directed to equip a freight car with special fixtures required for the transportation of automotive transmissions, which was required for the following Monday. As indicated in the initial denial this rush job was considered to necessitate the use of some men who had previously installed similar equipment. Seven carmen were used, and performed eight hours work on Saturday, the same on Sunday, and 5'/z on Monday to complete the work. Under the circumstances it would appear that the Carrier was justified under Rule 6 in using carmen experienced in this particular work, even though they came from another department.