Fogy 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 9098
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 9335
 2-SPT-CM-'82
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee John B. LaRocco when award was rendered.
 ( Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the United States
 Parties to Dispute: ( and Canada


Dispute: Claim of Employes:











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 aver the dispute involved herein.

The Organization brings this claim on behalf of a carman employed at Lafayette, Louisiana in the Lafayette Division. According to the Organization, the Carrier violated Rules 8 and 28 of the applicable agreement when it assigned carmen from the Houston, Texas Division to perform carmen's work at Lafayette without first calling Claimant to perform overtime work. Claimant seeks thirtyone hours of pay at the premium rate for six days in March, 1980. The Carrier admits that ten carmen from Houston went to Lafayette on the dates in controversy to assist in repairing bad order cars. A heavy backlog of bad order cars had developed at Lafayette. The Carrier, though, contends it was not required under Rules 8 or 28 or any other rule to call Claimant who had voluntarily opted to keep his name off the two overtime boards maintained at the Lafayette train yard and repair track.
 Form I Award No. 9098
 Page 2 Docket No. 9335
 2-SPT-CM-'82

 The Carrier also alleges that this claim progressed to this Board is substantially different from the claim handled on the property and thus, this claim must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. In its Notice of Intent to file an ex pane submission, the organization seeks more compensation for Claimant than was requested on the property. However, the Organization's submission to this Board asks for the same remedy as contained in the initial claim on the property. The minor discrepancy in the amount of compensation requested appears to have resulted from clerical inadvertence. Thus, there has been no substantive change in the claim and we may address the merits.

 In this case Claimant has conceded that, on the dates in question, his name did not appear on the overtime boards. Indeed, he did not want his name listed on the overtime boards so he would not be called to pexform additional service during the night. There is no obligation on the Carrier to call a worker whose name is omitted, consistent with the employee's desire, from the overtime board. If Claimant wanted to be tailed for overtime work, he should have followed the recognized procedure for adding his name to the overtime boards. Claimant's voluntary election to keep his name off the overtime boards precludes him from asserting the instant claim. '




                            By Order of Second Division


Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 By
 rie Brasch - Administrative Assistant

 Dated Chicago, Illinois, this 19th day of May, 1982.