Form 1
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
SECOND DIVISION
Award No. 11955
Docket No. 11761
90-2-89-2-66
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee John C. Fletcher when award was rendered.
(Brotherhood Railway Carmen/Division of TCU
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Southern Railway Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
1. That under the current Agreement the Carrier violated Rule 10 when
they failed to call Carman D. Brooks for overtime on January 30, 1988.
2. That accordingly, the Carrier be ordered to pay Carman Brooks
eight (8) hours' pay at the overtime rate.
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.
Rule 10 of the Agreement provides, in pertinent part:
"Record will be kept of overtime worked and men
called with the purpose in view of distributing
the overtime as equally as possible consistent
with forty (40) hour week rules."
At Macon, Georgia, some controversy developed in calling Carmen for overtime
work. In some instances Supervisors lined up Carmen for overtime work the day
before it was required. To insure fairness to all Carmen, Carrier's General
Foreman, on August 2, 1986, issued the following directive:
Form 1 Award No. 11955
Page 2 Docket No. 11761
90-2-89-2-66
"In order to clarify this, the following procedure will be observed. The carmen's overtime
board will be called when needed within (5) five
hours prior to the start of the overtime."
On January 29, 1988, at 1:00 P.M., eighteen hours before the over-
time assignment was scheduled to commence work, Carrier called another Carman,
assigned in the train yard, who had fewer overtime hours than Claimant, to
work in place of a Carman who had reported off sick, assigned in the forward
ing yard. Claimant filed an immediate protest, contending:
"I am claiming 8 hours at the time and half rate
of pay because the overtime board was called 18
hours prior to the time the job was to be filled
on 1-30-88. I was the next man out on the overtime board. This is not our regular procedure
of calling the overtime board."
This Claim remained unsettled through extensive handling and is now
properly before this Board for adjudication.
While it is manifestly clear that the overtime call in this dispute
was initiated well before the published time period in the General Foreman's
instructions there is no showing that if the assignment had been made within
five hours of the start of the overtime a different employee would have been
entitled to the work. Claimant contends that he would have been the next man
out on the overtime board. However, the Rule does not contemplate assignment
of overtime on a rotating basis. Rather, the language of the Rule clearly
contemplates that efforts be made to distribute overtime equally among Carmen
on the overtime board. It is unrefuted in this record that the Carman offered
the overtime, albeit earlier than contemplated by the practice in place, had
less hours than Claimant. It would seem from this fact that he would have
been entitled to be called before Claimant.
Before concluding we must mention that it is apparent that over the
years the parties at Macon, Georgia, developed a practice where overtime would
be called not more than five hours before it was to be worked. Calling in
advance of this time seems to be the real issue involved in this Claim. To
avoid such disputes in the future the parties are urged to adhere to the practice they mutually developed.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
low
Form 1 Award No. 11955
Page 3 Docket No. 11761
90-2-89-2-66
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest:
ancy J. D -Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day of November 1990.