The ffacts of the case are that on April 8, 2005, Carman Reinsborough was assigned to work the hours of 7:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. At 9:00 A.M. he was sent to Riley's on a road truck job by his Supervisor. Reinsborough was instructed to stay at the site until the job was completed. Reinsborough worked until 7:45 P.M. and was paid an additional four hours and 45 minutes at the time and one-half rate.
It is the Organization's position that the Carrier improperly used Carman Reinsborough to fulfill an assignment which it knew or should have known would entail overtime rather than contacting the local committee for the assignment of overtime. Claim was filed on the Claimant's behalf because he should have been used since he was in line on the overtime call list. It argues that it was apparent that overtime would be required because Reinsborough specifically asked his Supervisor whether to be hack at 3:00 PAL and was instructed to work until dark or when the job was complete. It states that in April it does sot get dark until approximately 8:00 P.M. Therefore, it is clear that the Supervisor knew the work could not be completed by the end of Reinsborough's shift and would require overtime. It states that Rules 29.2 and 29.5 were violated which state the following:
It further argues that on property Second Division Award Nos. 13696 and 13729 support its position.
It is the position of the Carrier that both Claimant and Reinsborough were working the same shift. Reinsborough is senior to Claimant and Rule 12.4(b) states that: "In the daily assignment of work to employees awarded positions under this Rule, fitness, ability, and qualifications being equal, the preference of senior employee will be considered." According to it, the Supervisor adhered to this rule Form 1 Award No. 13932
when he sent the senior employee on this assignment rather than Claimant and any reference to Rule 29 and the overtime call list is irrelevant, since the work was assigned at the beginning of Reinsborough's shift at 9:00 A.M.
It further argues that that when Reinsborough specifically asked if he was "to be back at 3:00 P.M. due to limited overtime" and the Supervisor "instructed him to stay until dark or until the job was done" the Organization has incorrectly assumed that this meant that the Supervisor "must have felt that overtime was required" That is an unsubstantiated presumption on the part of the Organization. The fact the employee inquired as to whether he would have permission to stay on overtime and the Supervisor gave him that permission does not mean that thought overtime would be required to complete the assignment.
Lastly, it argues that the aforementioned Awards relied upon by the Organization actually support a denial in the instant dispute because this matter does not involve the assignment of new work during the middle of Reinsborough's shift, as was the case in the two previous Awards.
The Board has thoroughly reviewed the record and finds that the relevant rules in dispute are Rule 29.5 which seeks to equally distribute overtime which is accomplished through overtime assignments being made by the local committee in accordance with Rule 29.2. We are not persuaded by the Carrier's secondary argument that Rule 12.4(b) takes precedence in this instance. Rule 12.4(b) pertains to work assignments and does not override Rules 29.5 and 29.2 in the distribution of overtime.
The Carrier is correct when it argues that Awards 13696 and 13729 are different than this case in that in both of those Awards the Carrier assigned additional new work during the middle of a shift when it knew or should have known that there would be overtime. The difference, however, in this instance is only in the fact that the job assignment was made early on in the shift (two hours after the start time) rather than midway. We agree with the Carrier and Award 13696 that it would be unreasonable for the Carrier to be required to bring in employees from the road and assign others (re-crew) for overtime for work that was continuation of an assignment. However, that is not the question in this instance, the crux of this dispute is whether or not the Carrier had enough information to know or believe that it was likely there would be overtime. In Award 13729 the Board discussed the calling of overtime and on page three it stated the following: Form 1 Award No. 13932
The Board disagrees with the aforementioned and determines that the Carrier either knew or should have known that the assignment in this case would result in overtime. The Carrier violated the Agreement when it failed to follow the provisions of Rules 29.2 and 29.5 in accordance with property precedence (Awards 13696 and 13729). The Claim is sustained as presented.
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.