Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No.
8065
SECOND DIVISION Docket No.
8056
2-WP-CM-`79
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Rodney E. Dennis when award was rendered,
( System Federation No.
117,
Railway Employes'
Department , A. F. (f L. C. 1.
00
Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)
(
( Western Pacific Railroad Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That the Western Pacific Railroad Company violated the controlling
agreement when Carmen B. Zumaran and A. R. Lang were bypassed for
overtime work on June
19, 1977
(heir second rest day) at which
time they were second and third out on the overtime board, due to
having worked a lesser n~u.~nber of hours.
2. That accordingly, B. Zumaran and A. R. Lang be compensated in the
amount of nine (g) hours' pay at the double time rate.
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,
193+.
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 issue in this case is whether Rule 11 (b), requiring equal
distribution of overtime, was violated when Claimants were not called to
work overtime on their second rest day.
Claimants worked overtime on their first rest day, Saturday, June
18,
1977,
Overtime work was again needed on Sunday, June
19, 1977.
The first
man on the overtime board was called for the assignment and refused it.
Claimants were listed second and third on the overtime board, but were not
called by Carrier for this overtime work. The Organization alleges that
Carrier bypassed the Claimants because they would have been paid double
time for June 19, since they had already worked overtime on June
18,
their
first rest day. The Organizat:~on further contends that Carrier cannot
arbitrarily bypass any employee: on the overtime board because they would
receive double time for overtime work.
Form 1 Award No.
8065
Page 2 Docket No,
8056
2-WP-CM-'79
Carrier contends that Rule 11 (b) cannot be construed to require it
to call employees fox overtime work on a first in-first out basis. It
maintains that no requirement exists by contract or by practice to require
this method of call in for overtime purposes. Carrier interprets Rule 11 (b)
as requiring equal distribution of overtime over a reasonable period of time
and not on an isolated incident basis.
Carrier's interpretation of Rule 11 (b) is the correct one. This Board
has consistently interpreted the equal distribution rules as applying over
a reasonable period of time. Absent specific language to the contrary, it has
not interpreted this rule to mean that Employees
must
be called for overtime
on a first in-first out basis. This Board has required in similar instances
that Claimant must demonstrate that an unequal distribution of overtime has
resulted from Carrier action before such a claim can be sustained, (See,
for example, Second Division Awards
6420, 6613, 7624.)
In the record before us, the Organization has failed to prove that
Carrier distributed overtime on an inequitable basis. It has only argued
that the Claimants were bypassed on the list and not called for the June
19 assigrnnent. Rule 11 (b) does not require Carrier to call Employees
for overtime work on a first in-first out basis. Consequently, this claim
must be denied.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest; Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
By _ _ C,..i
semarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Date at Chicago, Illinois, this 29th day of August, 1979.