Form
I NATIONAL
RAIhROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 9082
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 8738
2-C&O-EW-'82
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Carlton R. Sickles when award was rendered.
( International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
Parties to Dispute:
( Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
I. That the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company violated Rule 11 of the
Shop Crafts agreement when Electrician John W. Gordon was not called
for eight (8) hours overtime on August
6, 1978.
2. That accordingly the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company be ordered to
compensate Electrician John W. Gordon eight
(8)
hours pay at the doubletime rate for August
6, 1978.
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 7Abor 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.
Claimant was not called for eight hours' overtime on August
6, 1978.
The
claimant alleges, and the carrier admits, that the claimant would have been
called for this overtime except that a mistake was made and his name was put
at the bottom of the list instead of the top. Claimant, therefore, did not
receive the double time which he would have received on a Sunday having worked
two shifts for a total of sixteen hours on the previous day. Claimant alleges
that he lost the opportunity to receive double time whereas other overtime would
normally be at time and a half and, therefore, should be compensated at double
time for this day that he did not work.
The carrier points out that the system for handling overtime is as provided
in Rule 11 quoted by both parties:
"(4)
There will be as near as possible an
equal distribution of overtime between employes who voluntarily sign the
overtime call lists". This system is referred to as an "equalization" system
rather than a "first in, first out" system which is sometimes utilized in
collective bargaining agreements.
Form 1
Page 2
Award No.
9082
Docket No.
8738
2-C&o-Ew-' 82
There are numerous awards which provide that under an equalization system,
it is not necessary that a particular employe be selected for a particular tour
of duty but that over a period of time the overtime be equalized "as near as
possible". The record indicates that during the period August
6, 1978
through
January
23, 1979
the claimant was offered overtime work on
93
occasions and
that the opportunity was refused
58
times. There appears to be no testimony
that, in fact, there was no opportunity for the claimant to have received a
substantially equal amount of overtime.
The fact that this one particular day was a double time day rather than a
time and a half day is not so material as to require that the equalization system
be applied to a particular day of overtime.
This subject matter was recently considered in Second Division Award
8833
wherein it was held that such a rule does not restrict overtime distribution into
a first in, first out basis, and the rule is complied with if the overtime work
is as equally distributed as possible aver a reasonable period of time. The
claim will be denied.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
By
-7~Lc
osemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dal tat Chicago, Illinois, this 19th day of May,
1982,