Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUST= BOARD Award No.
8335
SECOND DIVISION Docket No.
8221
2-MP-CM-'80
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee John B. LaRocco when award was rendered.
( System Federation No.
2,
Railway Employes'
( Department, A. F. of L. - C. I. 0.
Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)
Missouri Pacific Railroad Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company violated Rule
8
(a) and (b)
of the controlling Agreement when they failed to distribute overtime as
per above cited Rule when they arbitrari7,v called. in Carmen Garvin
and Zagalik to work overtime Tune
29, 1977.
2. That the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company be ordered to compensate
Carmen W. R. Steinkamp and K. L. Mormon in the amaung of ten (10) hours
each at the punitive rate of pay.
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 one
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.
Claimants worked out of the carrier's train yard and repair facility in
Kansas City, Missouri. This dispute arises out of the assignment of overtime to
two other Carmen on Tune
29, 1977.
The other Carmen performed overtime work too
hours before and eight hours after their regular shift. The organization claims
that if overtime had been properly distributed pursuant to Rule
8(b)
of the
controlii.ng agreement, the claimants were entitled to and should. have been
assigned the full . ten hours of overtime that accrued to the two other Carmen.
The carrier contends, and we agree, that Rule 8(b) of the controlling
agreement does not contemplate absolute equality in the distribution of averttne.
Second Division Award No.
6613
(Lieberman). A claim for improper distribution
mast be measured over a period of time and not tied to one particular incident.
Second Division Award No.
6Zl20
(Shapiro). From the record, it is clear that the
organization failed to prove that the claimants were denied access to substantially
equal overtime over a period of time. Indeed, there has been no showing that
these two claimants were deprived of overtime opportunities during a period of
time as a result of the carrier's assignment on June
29, 1977,
and concommitantly,
no proof that the claimants were ready and willing to perform the work. Second
Fo rm 1
Page 2
Award No. 8335
Docket No. 8221
2-MP-CM-'80
Division Award No.
762+
(Williams). Thus, the carrier did not violate the
8(b)
overtime distribution provisions.
Next, the organization asserts that the carrier, by calling in the other
carmen two hours before the commencement of their regular shift, violated the
prohibition against calling in employes more than one hour in advance of their
regular shift as set forth in Rule 4(e). However, the organization has proven
no connection between Ruse 4(e) and this particular claim for a total of twenty
hours of overtime. Absent a showing that these claimants were injured by the
alleged violation of Rule 4(e), we cannot address this contention on its merits.
Lastly, the organization argues ,that the carrier after timely requests, did
not furnish the organization with overtime hours performed by the faun carmen.
However, these ,records would hardly provide this Board with a better understanding
of the dispute. The claimants are asking for a specific ten hours of overtime
and are, again, not making a claim for lost premium time pay over a certain time
period.
A W A R D
The claim is denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
By
~semarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, I11im is, this 16th day of April,
1980,