Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
SECOND DIVISION
Award No. 13389
Docket No. 13299-1
99-2-97-2-72
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee
Robert L. Hicks when award was rendered.
(Michael J. Farthing
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(National Railroad Passenger Corporation (AMTRAK)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
°`l.
That The National Railroad Passenger Corporation violated the
overtime Agreement, in particular Rule 13, when on date of
January 7, January 8 and January 9, 1996, I was not called for
overtime, and:
2. that accordingly, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation
should make me whole again by paying all wages I would have
earned if I were called and worked the overtime in dispute."
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 were given due notice of hearing thereon.
On January 7, 8 and 9, 1996, the states of Pennsylvania, Delaware and New
Jersey were inundated with snow, with the Governors of each state declaring an
emergency and ordering all roads be closed.
Form 1 Award No. 13389
Page 2 Docket No. 13299-f
99-2-97-2-72
Amtrak still had to operate and those who were already on duty when the snow
commenced, remained on duty to work as required. Claimant was, obviously, at home
when this snow hit. He is of the belief he should have been called to work on Sunday,
and once on the job, retained until Tuesday as others were.
Claimant filed claim seeking the overtime, and referred to an April 1, 198:5
Agreement that allegedly was violated. (Although Carrier argues in its Submission that
Claimant cited no Rule in the on-property handling, it is confirmed that the April 1,
1985 Agreement was referred to.)
Item 2 of that Agreement reads:
"2. IT IS THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE PARTIES THAT THIS
LOCAL AGREEMENT SHALL SUPPLEMENT, BUT SHALL IN
NO WAY CHANGE OR MODIFY THE EXISTING SCHEDULE
AGREEMENT."
Item 4
of
the same Agreement reads in pertinent part as follows:
". ..OVERTIME WORK, ACCRUING TO EMPLOYES COVERED BY
THIS AGREEMENT, SHALL BE SHARED AND ALLOCATED
AMONG THE EMPLOYES AVAILABLE ACCORDING TO
ROTATION . . . ."
The Overtime Rule on the property reads:
"Overtime to be distributed in conjunction with the duly authorized local
committee
of
the craft
of
their representative and the local management.
Record will be kept of overtime worked and the men called with the
purpose in view of distributing the overtime equally."
Basically, the craft's Overtime Rule is not a seniority type rule. The youngest and
the oldest in seniority share whatever overtime is available.
The special agreement recognized that feature. Claimant may be owed a future
share of any available overtime until his overtime would equal that paid the junior
employees on January 7, 8 and 9, 1996, but as long as the Carrier honors the shared
Form 1 Award No. 13389
Page 3 Docket No. 13299-I
99-2-97-2-72
Overtime Rule,
of
which there is no indication to the contrary, Carrier's utilization
of
its Electricians on January 7, 8 and 9, 1996, was proper, particularly under the
conditions prevalent on the claim dates.
AWARD
Claim denied.
ORDER
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 BOARD
By Order
of
Second Division
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 12th day
of
April 1999.