This claim arises from a derailment of four cars which occurred on November 29, 1993 at Rumford, Maine, and Carrier's assignment of overtime involved in rerailing those cars to the regular road truck crew sent to that location rather than involving the local committee at Waterville, Maine, in the assignment of that overtime. The regularly assigned road truck crew worked for 17 hours at Rumford on that date to complete the rerailing task. The record reflects that no Carmen are employed at Rumford, and that an overtime roster is maintained in Waterville, some two hours from that location.
The Organization contends that this overtime assignment violates the following provision of the Maine Central Agreement:
The Organization also relies upon the following language in the October 23, 1992 Letter of Agreement entered into by the parties regarding the Distribution of Overtime:
The Organization argues that Carmen Philbrick who was working on that date in the Waterville Shop would have been the appropriate person to be sent to work that overtime, and should be compensated accordingly.
Carrier initially contends that these provisions apply to planned, foreseeable overtime, which was not the situation with this derailment. Carrier argues that it properly dispatched the road crew to perform the rerailing of the cars, and that they were entitled to perform any overtime involved under the continuation of work provisions of Rule 4. It contends that the Rules do not require it to send the road crew back two hours to Waterville after their regular shift and dispatch a different employee to travel another two hours to perform any overtime involved in the same job. It alleges that the overtime involved could not have been known or anticipated ahead of time.
Carrier further argues that the October 23, 1992 letter, by its very terms, does not apply since this overtime work was at a location specifically excluded from its coverage, since no Carmen worked there. Carrier also notes that by letter dated February 1, 1993 the parties agreed to further understandings concerning the assignment of overtime, including that road truck crews would be manned only by employees who bid or bumped into that position. Carrier argues that Claimant is not such an employee, and that the Organization failed to meet its burden of proving a violation of the Agreement.
A careful review of the record convinces the Board that the Organization has failed to sustain its burden of proving that Carrier's assignment of overtime to the regular road crew properly dispatched in this derailment situation was in violation of the cited Rule. In the circumstances of this case, Carrier was entitled to have its assigned crew complete the task "to meet its service requirements" under Rule 4. The Organization has failed to show that the language of the October 23, 1992 Letter of Agreement was applicable to this location or that Claimant was qualified to perform the work in issue. Accordingly, the claim must fail.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.