Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
SECOND DIVISION
Award No. 13862
Docket No. 13747
05-2-04-2-25
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee
Marty E. Zusman when award was rendered.
(Brotherhood Railway Carmen Division
(Transportation Communications International Union
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Delaware and Hudson Railway Company, Inc.
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
"1. That the Delaware and Hudson Railway Company
(Division of CP Rail) violated the terms of our current
Agreement, in Particular Rule 7.2 when they failed to
properly call the overtime board on Monday, December
15, 2003, at Saratoga, New York.
2. That accordingly, the Delaware and Hudson Railway
Company be required to compensate Carman J. N. Alasky
in the amount of seven (7) hours at the overtime rate. This
is the amount he would have earned had the Carrier
complied with our Agreement."
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.
Form 1 Award No. 13862
Page 2 Docket No. 13747
05-2-04-2-25
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute
involved herein.
Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.
The claim is made by the Organization that on Monday, December 15,
2003, at Binghamton, New York, the Claimant was first out on the rotated
overtime board and available for duty. The Organization alleges that the
Claimant called, was advised that he could not work and thereafter another
employee was permitted to perform the overtime assignment in violation of
Rule 7.2. That Rule states in pertinent part that:
"There will be an overtime call list (or call board) established
for the respective crafts or classes at the various shops or in the
various departments, as may be agreed upon locally to meet
service requirements, preferably by employees who volunteer
for overtime service . . ."
The Carrier denied the claim. It pointed to the fact that a Carmen called
off due to a snow storm and overtime was approved. However, the
Organization maintains the overtime call list and if the call was
inappropriately made, it is the Organization that is at fault. It also argued on
property that there was no proof establishing an incorrect call for overtime.
The Board has carefully reviewed this claim. The Carrier has initially
argued a fatal procedural error in that the claim on the property was for an
improper overtime call at "Binghamton, NY" while the claim filed before the
Second Division was for "Saratoga, New York." The Board notes that every
other word of the claim on property is identical to the claim before the Board.
Such error is inconsequential, obviously irrelevant and will not dissuade this
Board from consideration of merits.
On merits, the facts are that Rule 7.2 is to assure the equal distribution
of overtime among those employees who preferably volunteer. The Carrier
Form 1 Award No. 13862
Page 3 Docket No. 13747
05-2-04-2-25
argued throughout the dispute, that there was no evidence that the Claimant
was in fact first out to be called on December 15, 2003. The call list was never
presented by the Organization. Even if the Claimant was first out and not
used, this Board can not determine that he would have been denied an equal
distribution of overtime due to this one instance. Accordingly, the Board will
deny the claim.
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 27th day of July 2005.