The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee William R. Miller when award was rendered.
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.
assisted in the re-railing of the second car by his Supervisor which took 30 to 45 minutes.
It is the Organization's position that the Carrier failed to call the Claimant in on overtime to assist in the re-railing of two box cars in Rigby Yard. Instead of calling Claimant to perform this service the Supervisor chose to assist Carman Niekless in re-railing one of the cars. The fact that the Supervisor assisted the Carman is proof that he d leave called in an Caiman, ` h he did not do.
It is the position of the Carrier that Carman Nickless performed the rerailing of each of the two cars. The first car was re-railed before the Supervisor arrived and the second car was also rer ' by Nickless with the Supervisor providing incidental assistance of placing blocking down. According to the Carrier, Nickless could have easily put this blocking in place for ' if and thus, it was not necessary for it call in another Carman to perform this task. The fact that the Supervisor provided some minimal assistance instead of letting Nickless perform the task alone was not a violation of the Agreement as it is custo for Supervisors to provide some basic assistance to their employees. The Supervisor's assistance was incidental and was not provided out of necessity nor did it encroach upon Carman Nicldess work covered by Rule 2.1(m).
Last, the Carrier argues that even if the claim had merit, which it denies, the remedy requested is not supported by the Agreement or the facts of the case. The assistance provided by the Supervisor did not exceed 45 minutes. Therefore, there is no basis to the Organization's claim for eight hours at the overtime rate of pay.
The Board has reviewed the record and finds that the Carrier violated the Agreement. Accordingly, while Carrier violated the Agreement, the Board holds that the amount of work indicated in this record would not accord the payment requested. Claimant shall be compensated one hour's pay at the straight time rate.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimant(s) be made. The Carrier is ordered to make the Award effective on or before 30 days following the postmark date the Award is transmitted to the parties.