Form 1 NATTO ANAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No.
8939
SECOND DTVISION Docket No. 8780-T
2-CR-EW-182
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee .1o:;ep1i A. Sickles when award was rendered.
( lnteruational Brotlierliood of Electrical Workers
_I?arti_c;; to D_is,p_»te_:
( Consolidated Rail Corporation
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That the Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail) violated the current
Agreement when Electrician Howard Goble was unjustly denied overtime
under the rules of the controlling agreement when R.
J.
Jarvis, SupervL:,,of Locomotives was improperly assigned on overtime by the Carrier to
perform electrical work on Unit
#$916
on January 28,
1979.
2. That accordingly the Carrier be ordered to desist in the practice of
assigning work of this nature to other than Electrician's and Electric:-:~,n
Helpers in the future and that Electrician Howard Goble be compensated
for twelve (12) hours at the applicable overtime rate on the above date.
1F
in din ;;
Vie 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.
The Claimant was a regularly assigned Electrician with a tour of duty from
7:00
a.m. to
3:30
P.m-, Monday through Friday. The Carrier concedes that it used
the services of a Supervisor in order to meet certain production schedules on
January 28,
1979,
but it insists that "every effort" was made by the Carrier to
obtain employees covered by the scope of the agreement on an overtime basis in
order to perform the required work; but the Carrier's efforts proved futile.
The Carrier argues that there is no basis for a sustaining award because,
while the matter was under consideration on the property, the Organization failed
to cite any rule as having been violated; and in addition to the assertion that
the Carrier was unable to locate any
bargaining unit
employees for the work in
question, the Carrier asserts that at the very time of the claim, the Claimant
was performing overtime service and receiving double time from 7:30 a.m. to
7:00
p.m.
The Board, in its review of the record, has considered the factual assertions
as discussed and considered while the matter was under review on the property.
Award No.
8939
Docket No. 8780-T
2-CR-EW-'82
Without immediate regard to certain questions of whether various items
were handled or not, and whether or not agreement provisions were cited, nonetheless, it seems clear that the Employee did submit a claim because a Supervisor
"... did Electricians work on Unit
8916
...°' Yet, we are unable to discover in
any of the correspondence which was considered on the property any assertion by
the Employee to discount the factual allegations made repeatedly by the Carrier
that the Carrier was unable to obtain work coverage by bargaining unit employees
on the date in question. Accordingly, we will deny the claim.
A WAR D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
1
y
-y semarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this
3rd day of March, 1982.