Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJtTST=T BOARD Award No. 8071
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 7927
2-CR-EW-' 79
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Herbert L, Marx, Jr. when award was rendered,
( System Federation No. 1, Railway Employes'
( Department, A. F. of L. - C. I. 0.
Parties to Dispute: ( (Electrical Workers)
( Consolidated Rail Corporation
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That under the current Agreement Electricians Daniel Salt, John
Krasko, John Berasley. James E. Martin, J. P. Finn, and A, M.
Zameit were unjustly dealt with and their service rights violated
when not called for overtime service during the year of 1976;
in compliance with Rule 11.
2, That accordingly the Carrier be ordered to compensate the aforementioned electricians' (Claimants) pay at the electricians
applicable ti:!e and one-half (1-fl) rate for the hours due them to
insure equal distribution of overtime for them during the year of
1976
for said violation.
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.
This claim involves the distribution of overtime work during 1976 in
the Test Department at Grand Central Station, New York, in which one six
claimants allege that their assignment to overtime fell short of that
assigned to three other electricians, in violation of Rule 11, Distribution
of Overtime. That rule reads as follows:
"When it becomes necessary for employees to work overtime, they
shall not be laid off during regular working hours to equalize
the time. Overtime will be distributed equally, adaptability
of employees to do work considered,"
On a procedural basis, the Carrier points out that grievance forms were
submitted to the Test Department Supervisor on February 11, 1976, and March
Form 1 Award No.
8071
Page
2
Docket No.
7927
2-cR-Ew-'79
1, 1976,
but were not further processed as provided under the Agreement
between the parties. Discussions between the Carrier's representatives,
the Organization, and/or some of the affected employes did occur daring
the remainder of
1976,
and in January,
1977,
concerning the distribution
of overtime, but these discussions did not lead to any satisfactory
conclusion. The instant claim was initially filed on February
4, 1977,
and the Carrier argues that, according to Rule 4-0-1, any reference to
matters in excess of
60
days prior to such filing is untimely. The Board
concurs in this pooition taken by the Carrier.
On the merits of the matter, it is clear to the Board that the Claimants
have relied entirely on that portion of Rule 1:1 which states that overtime
"will be distributed equally", without reference to the qualifying clause,
"adaptability of employees to do work considered". There is no dispute
that the Claimants received less overtime work than certain other Electricians,
but the Claimants make no case to support their contention that the
particular work involved could have readily been assigned to them. Carrier,
in its presentation, points to specific and special types of assignments
granted to certain ema~lcyes, based on their experience and qualifications
(i.e., "adaptability"); the burden to show otherwise is on the Claimants,
and they have not met this responsibility. The Board, therefore, can find
no violation of Rule 11 under such circumstances.
A WAR D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTbENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
BY
emarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated it Chicago, Illinois, this 5th day of September,
1979.