Foam l NATIONAL RAILROAD ADMUSTiEM BOARD Award No. 7970
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 7860
 2-WT-CM-'79



P arties to Disywte: ( (Carmen)
 (
 ( Wash_t.n~,`"ton Terminal Company

 Dis pute ; Claim oy IW of o;,res











Finditl z~;s

 The Second Division of the Adjustment Board., upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

 The carrier or carriers and the e-nploye or employes involved in this dispute are respectively car r i er and eii:ploye within the meaning of the - Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 198.

 This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

This dispute involves the alleged improper use of two apprentices on
 an overtime assigpr:ie:nt in:ztead of usir; e,°n-ployes on the overt.ime list. The
 facts are that the Cla~imanas liad be.e:a a;v _ed to work- overt -*',ne, being first
 up on the overtime, bo?-rd, on Saturday -JW bx~tza.xy a6, 1977. This overtime
 assign:aent z~as cancelled at 3:30 T.~'. on Friday h'cbx~.aa.ry 25th. On February
 26th two apprentice Ca.rrven v;ere called to perform ov ert:ixa work on that day
 Form 1 Award No. 7970
 Page 2 Docket No. 786C)
 2-ivnr-cry- '79

 as we71 as Febmzary ?7 and February 28th. The two men worked for a total of 66 hours. carrier alleged tl'sat the overtime board had been exlz=wasted prior to calling the tz~To apprentices.

 The relevant contractual provisions include Rule 34, which provides, in pertinent part:




Rule L1 of the A- reement prov:i.dos that ove^ti.r.:e records i~rill be maintained. for the put-pose of U~.^L1.':ibuti.ta`; ovex'time eUVlal ay.

 Carrier first r:a.:imLai.ryo that the C:L=,aYn presented- wt the lower level vas different th.n the Claim presented at the tar two levels, in tine procF_,;;uxc on the p:aopertye `l'1?e record does not svrnnort Cax'x.~ier `s arf;uxnent; the Cla.~.i.4m was too'; x:!atar:ia.:Li_y chanf;ed du;c:in;; the h~wn:~liry are the property, v'he add9_;.:.~_ar, af a rule allegedly violated doos not ~'W,p.lly ~flaw the proee;~s (see !~:;.wsci 60-48)t The C1e.i:.2 -presented to this -BZoard w-e;s the sw_:e Cla:ern as that handled at the highesty.level oil the property.

 Carrier arfues that the Fn.-':inehause fare:~:a.ns upon learnin.of the need for 'YTa1.'1% On SaturQ.~3~r, attC:?iptE::.~ ta contact each of 'Dine C1 a '..?'i:,`3.I'lt ~ 'Lilt Zdtbz_>'tl'~ S1ICCCSpe Carrier 2.r,,;1'·_E.S that :l.t `v7aUZd 1'1~,;.i/4 preferred to have ClaLlrianrs perform the wrorlv rather than the apprerica.c°es, but that- they deliberately did not ansT.rer their telephones because they ;sere angered bar the cancelled overtirze an h'r :idzy® Petitioner disagrees ~=.rd insists that ClaLaarnLs were avaa_lsb:i..e for avevti:^.e on the dates involved and were not called, Pe titiarwr notes that the tz~ro apprentices were sons o:" supervr_sor s.


statements :from the Claimants indicating th;..t they were available arid were
 not called. Carrier presented no evidence whatever, on the property,
 indi.ca-c-11ng that the men had. been called., other than the bald assertion
 that the overtime :List had been exhausted. There also appears to be some
 conflict in Carrier's exhibits as to v-hcvher or not some of the Claimants
 had been reached. Carrier belatsd1y presented a letter from the fore-an wit-h
 its submission to tMs Board, Without evaluating the probity of that
 document, :it :is clearly too late and mn,;;r not be considered by this Board
 as evidence, This paS7.tia:1 is long est:;thjlished on a1_1 Divisions of the
 N.R.A.B, (see Awards 6503, 6988 and 7461; for example).

 In disputes of this nature i t is ;ell recognized zed that Carrier is
 required to provide same ev::.deuce that it has indeed made the appropriate
 calls to utilize the overtone Board before it is free to avail itself of
 other alternatives. In some -",r,,.rds this T?aa,rd has held that even more than
 one call. is necessary to sustain Carrier's contention that a proper effort,
 Forma 1 Award PTo. 7970
 page 3 Docket No. 7860
 2-WT-CM-179

 had been made. In the insant dispute there is no evidence whatever to indicate when calls were rrad.e and by .,Than. On the other hand there Zaas evidence sub::iitted that Cla.:una.nts were available. There is, then, no =! rreconcilable conflict as urged by Carrier.

 in addition to the ca.iolusion alcove, there is no doubt but that Carrier violated 3~,i'Le 34 :1.x2 using, the az)prenta_ces on the overtime assigm-nent wit)-.out arrmz~:iry the :ratter with the local ca,a:iittee. In -r-act, Carrier aox:::itted that it did violate that Rule, alt)~au,,;h ursntenta_arzaL.y. it r_:ust be concluded that 1?etiti~nex° has established a r)r~::a. facie case in supr~arv of :i is Claire. vj-:hh respc:c'c to the re~n~.~_~r, Cl a w.av..t°:rys rust be made whole, but
 at st.x~a,ight t:ave rates far tlme not 1ra::''~.ed, as contended by- Carrier.
 A G? A R D
 Claim sustdine~3; Claa;ia.xi.ts gill be paid at straight time rates only.
 NA`! TOT:AZ RAIhT;OAD ?1DJT(JS`IT4H,T.IT BOARD
 By Order of Second Di°vvs-ion

 Attest: Execurt~ive C ecret a?^~
 National Railroad Adjustmen-11- Board
~By
 r>ra,sch - Acm:ini stx'ative Assistant

 Dated at~Ch3.ca,rJo, Illinois, this 13th day of June, 1979·