-.., Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADjUSTIvE1iVT BOARD Award No. 6870
 ', SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 671+8




                    ( 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 Memorandum of Agreement Number Twenty-nine (29) (Rev.), when it failed to properly call Superior Carman L. A. Laurich for overtime May 27, 1973.


            2. That accordingly the Carrier be ordered to compensate Carman L. A. Laurich in the amount of eight (8) hours at the time and one-half (12) rate for his class for May 27, 1973.


    Findings:


~,,.wi 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.


    On May 23, 1973, the Carrier called Carman A. Fudally from the preceding shift, the 12:01 A. M. to 8:00 A.M. shift, for overtime service at the Superior Wisconsin train yard on the 8:00 A. M. to x+:00 P.M. shift.


    The Organization contends that the Claimant had fewer hours than the man called and should have been called from the overtime call list before Mr. Fudally.


    The Carrier contends that the Claimant was not properly eligible for overtime service because he was not on his rest day and thus ineligible under Memo 29 Rev. We disagree. Paragraph B does require -(:hat employes for overtime service be obtained "first by calling the employes on the

Form 1
 Page 2

 Award No. 6870
 Docket No. 6748
 2-BN-CM-'75

 overtime call list who are on rest days on the shift involved". Paragraph B does not stop here but continues: "Additional employes, if needed, will be called first from the overtime list of the preceding shift". The Organization makes no contention that the Claimant qualified for overtime service as a person on rest day. But rather, the Organization contends that since no employes qualified under the rest day segment of the Rule for the shift involved, that Memo 29(B) Rev. then required that employes for overtime service be called from the preceding shift. The Claimant was in fact eligible for overtime service on May 27, 1973, based on the clear language of the entirety of Memo 29(B) Rev.

 The Carrier contends that it did call the "first man out" but he could not be reached; and that seven Carmen had to be called (the Carrier asserts that the Claimant was the fifth person called and A. Fudally the seventh) before one would respond for the job in question. Memo 29(C) Rev. provides in part: "...When the foreman is designated to call such employes, the committees will be used to verify the fact that an employe called for overtime service cannot be contacted." There is no evidence in the record that the Carrier complied with Memo 29(C). This Division has sustained claims where the Carrier has failed to get verification that a telephone call was made. See Second Division Awards Nos. 4815, 5999, and 6682. ?To argument was made on the property concerning the rate of pay due Claimant: we thus shall sustain the claim as presented.

 A W A R D
Claim sustained.

 Attest: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

By Order of Second Division


By Y
      o emarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant


Dated· at Chicago, Illinois, this. 30th day of May, 1975