The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Peter R. 'levers when award was rendered.

( National Railroad Passenger Corporation

1. That under the current Agreement, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) failed to call electricians for available overtime with the purpose in view of distributing the overtime equally, at Beech Grove, Indiana, May 3(1, 19131 unjustly depriving Electrician J. R. Roberson of the additional work opportunity that would otherwise normally have accrued to him at the overtime rate.

2. That under the current Agreement, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) tailed to distribute overtime in conjunction with the duly authorized local committee or their representative at Beech Grove, Indiana, May 30, 1981; unjustly depriving Electrician Roberson of the adWi t i onal wor'c o;>portuni ty that would normally have accrued to him at the overtime rate.

3. That accordingly, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) he ordered to compensate Electrician J. R. Roberson an additional eight (tl) hours at time and once-halt- the applicable F:1ectricians' rate in order to make him whole.

'Elie Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

The carrier or carriers and the emplove or employes invol.ved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employes within the mc~aninp 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 appeararct, at hearing thereon.

On May 29, 1981, Claimant, J. R. Roberson, was employed as an electrician, Trim Shop, Second Trick, by the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak), hereiTlafter ref=Erred to as the Carrier, at the Beech Grove, Indiana, Maintenance Facility.

On May 30, 1981, the carrier assigned an electrician from another department to perform overtime work in the Trim Shop. The Carrier did not-call Claimant to work that day even though lie was available, as it was his rest clay.

"(f) When it becomes necessarv for employees to work overtime, they shall not he laid off during regular working hors to equalize the time. Overtime to be distributed in conjunction with the duly authorized local committee of tire craft or their representative and the Local Management. Record will be kept of overtime worked and men called with the purpose in view of raistributing the overtime equally."

The Organization contends that the Carrier filled the overtime assignments arbitrarily and capricioLisly and in bad faith. The Organization claims that the overtime assignment was not made in conjunction with the duly authorized local committee of the elf.ctricians for the purpose of disrihiitiLig overtime equally.

For this alleged violation of Rule 13, the Organization seeks, on Claimant's behalf, eight hours' pay at time and one-half the applicable electrician's rate of pay.

The Carrier's position is that it did riot violate Rule 13 as Rule 13 requires that a record of overtime he kept as a means to accomplish an equal distribution of the work over a period of time. The rule, according to the Carrier, does not require a strict rotation system, nor does it specify the method of distribution.

The Carrier contends that the Organization has failed to establish that, over a period of time, Claimant has been treated inequitably in terms of overtime compensation. Furthermore, the Carrier contends that Rule 13(f) is silent on the subject of penalty payment. This, if Carrier were found to have violated Rule 13(f), Claimant would he entitled only to a correction of tire problem, not to monetary damages.

After revi,~wing the record in this case, it is the position of this Board that the Carrier did not violate Rule 13(f) by `ailing to call the Claimant for the overtime assignment.

In numerous cases, claims have been denied based upon the holding that equal distrihiition rules, such as 13(f), absent special langtiag,e, must be interpreted as applying over a reasonable period of time and not on an isolated incident has i5. In Second Division Award 7b24, Referee Williams stated the following principle:

"The issue in this cast. is whether Rule 8 requiring the equal distribution of overtime was violated when the Claimant was not called for certain overtime work on October 28, 1974. This Board has held in numerous awards that such rules are properly observed if work is distributed substantially equally over a reasonable period of time. An isolated incident does not substantiate a claim. A valid claim must be based on a

(See also Second Division Award 1`()65).

As the Organization does not establish that the Claimant has been treated inequitably in terms of overtime compensation over a reasonable period of time,. no violation of Rule 13(f) can be found, and this claim must he denied. However, this Board recommends that the parties meet to discuss developing a bettor recordkeeping and overtime distribution system in order to avoid problems like this in the future.

A W A R 1)