The Second Division consisted of the regular members and
in addition Referee Arthur Stark when award was rendered.
SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 96, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'
DEPARTMENT, AFL -- CIO
(Carmen)
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Carman Alphonsus E. VanDamme, .hereinafter referred to as the claimant, is regularly assigned by bulletin ,to regular position on the 7:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. shift at Geneva, N.Y., Monday through Friday, with rest days Saturday and Sunday. He was available for duty on May 27, 1967, but was not called.
On Saturday, May 27, 1967, the carrier dispatched Carman Burles McCall from his regular assigned position at Manchester, N.Y. ~ to go to Geneva, N.Y. to perform Carman duties at Geneva, N.Y. on that date:
This dispute has been handled with all officers designated to handle disputes, - including the highest officer, all of whom have declined to adjust same.
The Agreement effective September 1, 1949 as it has been subsequently amended and the Memorandum of Understanding effective October 16, 1960, are controlling.
claimant and was on duty and under pay at straight time on the date of claim.
3. The needed carman work was unassigned work, to which claimant held no demand right of work.
4. Employees are seeking to read into the understanding of October 16, 1960 additionalrights not there present and which should not be created by a sustaining decision.
5. The memorandum of understanding of October 16, 1960 upon which the employees have placed their reliance does not sustain their position and, in fact, is not applicable in this case.
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 Saturday, May 27, 1967, Carrier dispatched Carman Burles McCall from Manchester to Geneva, New York, where, for eight hours, he performed Carman duties. At the time, McCall was regularly assigned at Manchester and Saturday was one of his regular work days. Petitioner affirms that Claimant Alphonsus E. VanDamme, the regularly assigned Geneva Carman (MondayFriday), should have received the Saturday assignment rather than McCall. It relies primarily on Paragraph 4 of the parties' October 16, 1960 Memorandum of Understanding which provides, in relevant part, that:
Carrier denies any rule violation. It notes that both McCall and VanDamme hold seniority rights on the same seniority district. The work required at Geneva was "unassigned". Consequently Claimant held no demand right to it and Carrier was free to use McCall who was under pay at straight time.
Carrier's arguments are not persuasive. We concur in the Finding in Third Division Award 4969 cited in Second Division Award 4670 that "an employe has no right to perform overtime work as such except where the Agreement so provides". But the 1960 Memorandum of Agreement does specifically provide that "only Carman regularly assigned to . . . Geneva . . . shall participate in overtime at these respective points." Carrier would distinguish between overtime and "unassigned" work. Of course, any hours which might represent overtime for one man might fall within a straighttime assignment of another. Thus, Saturday was a regular work day for McCall while it was an overtime day for VanDamme. More significantly, however, Saturday work was overtime work at Geneva. The intent of the