Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No.
6843
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 6733
2-BNI-CM-'
75
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee David P. Twomey when award was rendered.
( System Federation No.
7,
Railway Employes'
( Department, A. F. of L.' - C. I. 0.
Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)
(
( Burlington Northern, Inc.
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That the Carrier violated the current Agreement, particularly
Rule
8
and Appendix K when it failed to properly call Grand
Forks Carman C. Thompson for overtime from the proper shift
overtime call list February 2,
1973.
2. That accordingly the Carrier be ordered to compensate Carman
C. Thompson in the amount of eight
(8)
hours at the double
(2) time rate for his class for February 2,
1973.
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.
Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing
thereon.
The Claimant was regularly assigned as a Carman on the third shift
in the Grand Forks Car Repair Shop, working 11:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M. with
rest days Thursday and Friday. The Claimant worked all the hours of his
work week and worked his first rest day, February 1,
1973.
On February
2,
1973,
the Carrier called an employe from the second shift, the
3:00
P. M.
to 11:00 P.M. shift to perform overtime service on the third shift. The:
Claimant was available on February 2nd, as this was his rest day. The
Claimant was 2irst out for overtime on the shift involved. The
Organization contends that the Carrier violated Rule
8
of the Agreement
when the Carrier did not call Claimant for the vacancy on the third shift
on February 2,
1973.
The Carrier contends that it is not the intent of
Rule
8
or of Appendix K to create conditions under which double time maybe reqai=ed; and that the Organization's position lacks IAAgreement support.
We disagree with the Carrier's contentions and we shall sustain the
claiiu as provided below.
Form 1 Award No.
6843
Page 2 Docket No.
6733
2-BNI-CM-'75
Rule 8(b) provides:
"(b) Overtime will be distributed to employees
on each shift by establishment of an overtime
call list on each shift in accordance with their
qualifications, and employees thereon will be
used for overtime work in such rotation as to
equally distribute it among them. Record of
overtime worked will be kept and made available
to Chairman of the Shop Committee upon request
for adjustment of inequalities of distribution."
(Emphasis Ours)
The language of Rule 8(b) is clear and unambiguous. It is capable of
only one meaning and that is that overtime is on a shift basis; and that
the equalization of overtime must be on a shift basis, through the
establishment and use of an overtime call list on each shift.
Since this claim is for work not performed we shall sustain the claim
to be paid at the straight time rate.
A W A R D
Claim sustained as per findings.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
By .,
osemarie Brasch - dministrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 7th day of April,
1975.