The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee James E. Knox when award was rendered.
SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 41, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'
DEPARTMENT, AFL-CIO (Carmen)
THE CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO RAILWAY COMPANY
(Southern Region)
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Carman E. E. Vanderhoof, hereinafter referred to as the Claimant, is regularly employed as such by the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company, hereinafter referred to as the Carrier, in its yards at Russell, Kentucky with a workweek Monday through Friday, rest days Saturday and Sunday on the first shift, 7:00 A. M. to 3:30 P. M. on the Shop Track.
The Carrier owns and operates a large facility at Russell, Kentucky known as the Russell Yards, which consist of a large Transportation Yard and Repair Track. Trains are made up, switched, cars are repaired and a large number of carmen and carmen helpers are employed holding seniority under the provisions of Rule 31 of the Shop Crafts Agreement and are assigned twentyfour hours per day, seven days each week inspecting, servicing trains and repairing cars.
The Carrier's Shop Track at Russell is assigned to a seven day operation and when the force is reduced on holidays the reduction is made in seniority order. The employes were notified by bulletin that certain employes would not perform service on the Thanksgiving-Holiday, November 26, 1964. This notice included the Claimant, said notice attached hereto as Exhibit A.
All data herein submitted in support of Carrier's position has been presented to the Employes or duly authorized representatives thereof and anade a part of the question in dispute.
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.
On November 26, 1964, the carrier selected an employe from the transportation yard to work overtime because of the utilization elsewhere of an employe whose regular assignment included work at both the transportation yard and the repair track. The employes claim that this overtime should have been given to an employe from the repair track on the ground that the absent employe's regular assignment was at the repair track.
The transportation yard is manned around the clock. The repair track is not. Under the agreement, a shift can be interrupted for a non-paid lunch break, only where less than three shifts are employed. Thus, a shift at the transportation yard is from 7:00 A. M. to 3:00 P. M., and a shift at the repair track is from 7:00 A. M. to 3:30 P. M. with a thirty-minute lunch period.
The absent employe's schedule was 7:00 A. M. to 3:30 P. M. with a thirty-minute lunch break. The evidence submitted by the employes shows that he performed some work every day at the repair track. While the employe selected for the overtime assignment worked from 7:00 A. M. to 3:30 P. M., he was paid for all that time and was given a paid lunch break in the same manner as other employes at the transportation yard. Moreover, he worked the entire shift at the transportation yard.
The basis of the employes' contention is that the carrier cannot fill a position at the repair track with someone from the transportation yard. Even if we were to conclude that the absent employe's position was at the repair track, it cannot be concluded from the record before this Board that the employe working overtime was filling the absent employe's position.