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 or about November 9, 2001 the Claimant was informed by the Carrier that he would no longer be called for overtime due to his physical limitations. The Claimant's physician had, in a report dated January 12, 1998 indicated that the Claimant was released to return to full duty with the Carrier. He would not, however, be allowed to operate moving vehicles for an indefinite period of time.

The record reflects that up until November 2001, the Carrier accommodated the Claimant's restriction and he was assigned tasks that did not require him to operate any moving vehicles, in particular locomotives.

The Organization argues that: (1) The Claimant has worked overtime on numerous occasions notwithstanding his physician's restrictions; (2) The Claimant can perform all tasks assigned to him; (3) The Claimant's restrictions have not created a problem in the past; (4) A past practice exists because the Carrier has not restricted the Claimant's overtime in the past; and (5) The movement of locomotives is not within the Employees' scope of work.

The Rule in question, Rule 10 of the Controlling Agreement reads in pertinent part:

"Overtime will be distributed equally among the employes, who are qualified to handle the work, of each shift by crafts." (Emphasis added)

The record reflects that the Carrier has accommodated the Claimant's restrictions in the past although through what methods is not revealed. The record further indicates that Machinists are subject to moving locomotives or assisting in the movement of locomotives during overtime assignments.

The Organization questions why the Carrier has removed the Claimant from overtime distribution at this point and asserts that the Claimant should be given the opportunity to work overtime and paid for overtime lost since November 9, 2001.

It is well established that past practice does not modify unambiguous contract language (Second Division Award 10670 and Third Division Award 30984). It is uncontested that the Claimant cannot, with his restrictions operate locomotives as the overtime assignments require. While the Carrier has accommodated the Claimant's restrictions in the past, it was not contractually, under the circumstances of this case compelled to do so. Under the clear and concise language of Rule 10 of the Controlling Agreement, the Board has no alternative but to deny the claim.

AWARD