Form 1 NATIONAL RAIIRQd.D ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No.
8710
SECOND DIVISION Docket No.
8530
2 -NRPC -EW-' 81
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Herbert L. Marx, Jr. when award was rendered.
( International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
Parties to Dispute:
( National Railroad Passenger Corporation
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That, Alan W. Buitenwerf, Field Technician, was unjustly dealt with and
deprived of his Seniority and contractual rights to work overtime on
November 12,
1978.
2. That, accordingly the Carrier be ordered to compensate Alan W. Buitenwerf
at one-half time his prevailing rate of pay for a total of 16 hours.
3.
To take the necessary steps and provisions to alleviate the discrepancies
of overtime at Brighton Park, Chicago.
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,
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.
Claimant is a Field Technician who claims that he was improperly denied the
right to work an overtime assignment and that the assignment was improperly given
to a less senior employe.
The Organization refers to Rule
13
F in support of the Claimant's view. This
rule reads in part as follows:
"...
Overtime to be distributed in conjunction with the duly
authorized local committee of the craft or their representative
and the local Management. Record will be kept of overtime worked
and men called with the purpose in view of distributing the
overtime equally."
The Carrier argues that the Claimant, as a Field Technician, is not governed
by Rule
13
F but rather by Appendix H which creates special rules for "Technicians"
and, by reference, also specifies which rules of the schedule agreement between the
parties are applicable to Technicians. Rule
13
is not included in such referenced
rules.
Form 1 Award No. 8710
Page 2 Docket No.
8530
2-NRPC-EW-181
The Board finds it unnecessary to determine here whether the Claimant is
covered by Rule 13 F or only by Appendix H and the rules specified therein. The
dispute shows no violation of either Rule
13
F or Appendix H on the part of the
Carrier, since the Claimant argues that he should have worked on the day in question
only because of his seniority over the employe who was assigned. Rule
13
F
makes no reference to assigning overtime by seniority but rather states that
overtime shall be distributed "equally". The Claimant makes no showing that he
has been deprived of an equal share of overtime with other employes in the same
classification. Appendix H includes no reference to overtime assignment whatsoever.
Some confusion may have been created as to the Carrier's allegation during the
course of the claim handling on the property that an attempt had been made to reach
the Claimant to notify him of a possible overtime assignment. This is not relevant
to the dispute, since there is no showing that the failure to assign the Claimant
on the day in question is violative of any rule.
A WAR D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
By ~1COSemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dateat Chicago, Illinois, this 6th day of May, 1981.