Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 11537
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 11401
88-2-87-2-48
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee James E. Mason when award was rendered.
(International Association of Machinists and Aerospace
( Workers
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(The Belt Railway Company of Chicago
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
1. That under the current Agreement the Carrier improperly and
unjustly dealt with Machinist employee H. P. Medina and the terms of the
Agreement, specifically Rule 10 thereof was violated when on the Good Friday
Holiday of March 28, 1986 the Carrier arbitrarily assigned Machinist T.
Velloreuzhathil to work eight (8) hours at the overtime rate on said holiday
as the daylight inspector on the outside service track.
2. That said Carrier action violated Machinist employee H. P.
Medina's right to perform Holiday overtime service in keeping with his
standing on the overtime board.
3. That accordingly, the Carrier be ordered to additionally
compensate Machinist H. P. Medina eight (8) hours pay at the time and one-half
rate for the March 28, 1986 Good Friday holiday.
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 employes 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.
This claim concerns itself with an alleged violation of Rule 10 of
the Agreement which provides that records be kept of overtime and that the
overtime worked be distributed equally among the employes of the craft.
On the Good Friday holiday, March 28, 1986, Claimant was not used for
premium pay work on the holiday. Rather, he was given the day off and was
compensated in accordance with the provisions of the paid holiday rule. The
allegation in this case is that another Machinist performed premium pay work
on the first shift on the holiday and his use caused a violation of the abovementioned Rule 10.
Form 1 Award No. 11537
Page 2 Docket No. 11401
88-2-87-2-48
Carrier responded to this claim by stating that, on this property,
the distribution of overtime is controlled by the Local Union Committee and
that holiday work has not been considered as "casual" overtime. Rather,
because of the nature of Carrier's service requirements wherein some service
is required on all seven days of the week, the practice has been to use those
employes who are normally scheduled to work on that particular day of the week
for the service which is necessary to be performed on the holiday. In this
case, the Machinist who was used on the first shift on Friday, March 28, was
regularly assigned to perform this work on a Tuesday through Saturday basis
and, therefore, was properly used for premium pay work on the Friday holiday.
We have carefully reviewed the record of this case and have considered the presentations of the parties. It is our opinion that there has not
been a proven violation of the Rules Agreement.
Rule 10 is not novel to this property. In one form or another, it
is found in almost all Machinist contracts on the railroads of this country.
This Rule has been the subject of numerous interpretations by this Board. As
was ruled in Award 8065 of this Division:
"This Board has consistently interpreted the equal
distribution rules as applying over a reasonable
period of time. Absent specific language to the
contrary, it has not interpreted this rule to mean
that Employees must be called for overtime on a
first in - first out basis."
This particular case, however, involves more than the simple distribution of overtime under Rule 10. Here we have a disagreement between the
parties over the proper method of filling assignments on holidays. From this
record it is clear that there is considerable variance between the respective
positions of the parties on who should be used for the premium pay work on the
holidays. The one thing which is clear from this record is that there is no
clearly definable procedure on this property for the assignment of holiday
work. The Organization argues that because the advertising bulletin does not
include work on holidays by specific reference, such premium pay work is not a
part of the regular assignment and should be considered as "casual" overtime
subject to distribution under Rule 10. Carrier, on the other hand, argues
that where, as here, the bulletined assignment encompasses the day on which
the holiday occurs, the incumbent is properly used for the premium pay work on
the holiday. While both of these contentions may have a kernel of logic in
them, this Board cannot create work and/or assignment procedures where none
now exists. It is incumbent on the parties to develop between themselves the
procedures they wish to use in the assignment of employes to the performance
of this premium pay work and to establish the recordkeeping methods they wish
to have to police those procedures. It is recommended that these parties do
so to avoid situations like this in the future.
Form 1 Award No. 11537
Page 3 Docket No. 11401
88-2-87-2-48
The case record here does not support organization's claim. The
claim as presented must be denied.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest: _
ancy J. ~ r - Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 10th day of August 1988.