Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
SECOND DIVISION
Award No. 12875
Docket No. 12631
95-2-92-2-184

The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Charlotte Gold when award was rendered.


(International Brotherhood of Electrical
( Workers
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Burlington Northern Railroad

STATEMENT OF CLAIM:



FINDINGS:

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


The carrier or carriers and the employee or employees involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employee 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 of hearing thereon.


At issue in this case is the question of whether Carrier is required to call an employee on his rest day to work overtime

(filling a position whose incumbent is on vacation) before allowing a scheduled employee to fill the vacancy, after blanking his position. Crane Operator Ed Shaw was on vacation July 16, 1990. Shaw's job was assigned to Electrician Jay Luce, upon Mr. Luce's request. This claim is raised on behalf of Electrician Sam Gillham, who was on his rest day at the time. Mr. Luce ultimately provided relief on four additional days of Mr. Shaw's vacation.

Form 1 Award No. 12875
Page 2 Docket No. 12631
95-2-92-2-184

The Organization cites a violation of Section 10 (b) of the Schedule Agreement:


Carrier alleges that Mr. Luce had the right to perform the work under Rule 13(a):


Form 1 Award No. 12875
Page 3 Docket No. 12631
95-2-92-2-184
If it is necessary to call furloughed
employees other than those making requests
under Rule 23 for temporary vacancies, it is
understood that inability to accept the
proffered employment shall not constitute a
forfeiture of Seniority rights. However, in
the restoration of forces, or increase in
forces, the provisions of Rule 22 (d) shall
govern, and shall not be construed as a
`temporary vacancy' irrespective of the length
of time additional forces may be required."

Carrier points out that Mr. Luce was the senior qualified employee requesting to relieve the vacationing employee, Mr. Shaw.


This Board has reviewed the entire record of this case and does not read Section 10 (b) to mean that Claimant was entitled to the relief work in question on an overtime basis before it was given to Mr. Luce. The work of vacationing employee Shaw was not given to an employee who was also required to perform his own assignment. Thus, the issue of whether someone is performing 25 percent of the vacationing employee's workload does not arise. At the same time, this rule does not mandate the utilization of an employee on his rest day for short-term work before assigning someone to the job who has requested the position. Rule 13 (a) clearly states that 11...the position of a vacationing employee may be filled without bulletining by transferring the senior qualified employee assigned in the facility where such vacancy or position develops requesting same." This rule does not specify that the work must be given to the senior qualified employee requesting same on an overtime basis.


Based upon all of the facts of the case, this claim must be denied.





Form 1 Award No. 12875
Page 4 Docket No. 12631
95-2-92-2-184



This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimant (s) not be made.


                              NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT EOARD By Order of Second Division


                              Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 17th day of April 1995.