Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 12181
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 11872
91-2-89-2-197
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee George S. Roukis 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 P. M. Collins, Andover, Virginia, for overtime
by
removing his name from the overtime list.
2. That the Carrier be ordered to pay Carman Collins 109 hours at
the overtime rate for listed dates in November and December, 1988 and January,
1989.
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.
The Organization contends that Carrier violated the Controlling
Agreement, particularly Rule 10, when Claimant's name was removed from the
Overtime Board on October 11, 1988. It asserts that as a result of such
removal, Claimant was denied fourteen (14) calls from November 19, 1988,
through January 9, 1989, for a total of one hundred and nine (109) hours.
Rule 10, in pertinent part reads:
"When it becomes necessary for employees covered by
this agreement to work overtime, they shall not be
laid off during regular work hours to equalize the
time. 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."
It maintains that Carrier has no right to remove a carman's name from the
overtime list since said option rests with the employee.
Form 1 Award No. 12181
Page 2 Docket No. 11872
91-2-89-2-197
In rebuttal, Carrier points out that between June 7, 1988, and
September 30, 1988, Claimant refused to work overtime on five (5) occasions
and accordingly consistent with the January 29, 1988 policy notice addressed
to all Mechanical Department Employees, it properly removed him from the
overtime list. This notice reads:
"Any employee desiring to be placed on the Overtime
Board should notify Foreman E.W. Collins by February
5, 1988. Once this overtime list has been completed
the following revised policy will be in effect. This
notice to precede all previous notices regarding
Overtime Board. Employees on Overtime Board should
make themselves available for this work. Any employee who declines to work overtime when notified three
(3) times will be dropped from the overtime list.
Any employee who cannot be reached to work overtime
three (3) times without a valid reason will be
dropped from the overtime list. Signed by Senior
General Foreman"
It further notes that no exception was taken to this policy by the employees
or the Local Chairman and observes that when Foreman E.W. Collins personally
asked Claimant twice whether he wanted his name back on the overtime list,
Claimant replied "No." It argues that the Organization has never shown how
Rule 10 was actually violated or proven that overtime was not distributed
equally as possible consistent with the forty (40) hour week rules as provided
by Rule 10.
In considering this case, the Board concurs with Carrier's position.
Firstly, there has been no showing how Rule 10 was violated specifically with
respect to the Rule's operational requirements. In other words, there has
been no factual demonstration that the overtime requirements were breached by
Carrier's action. Secondly, there has been no showing that the January 29,
1988 Policy Notice was inconsistent with Rule 10 or that said notice was
unacceptable or challenged by employees or the Local Chairman. Thirdly, by
his own voluntary actions, Claimant refused to work overtime on five (5)
occasions which justified his removal from the overtime list and refused his
Foreman's requests to have his name placed back on the Overtime Board List.
Accordingly, in view of these findings, and more pointedly the absence of evidence indicating a Rule 10 violation, this Board is compelled to deny the
claim.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
Form 1 Award No. 12181
Page 3 Docket No. 11872
91-2-89-2-197
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest:
_
ancy J. -Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 6th day of November 1991.