It is the Organization's position that the Carrier violated Rule 2.1 on July 13, 2006, when it ordered or otherwise allowed Carman William Pierce, who is Carman/Roadman to perform work in the Paint Shop at Waterville, ME. Pierce primed two freight cars and was required to work overtime. Claimant, who is a Carman/Painter, was on his rest days and was available for this work and should have been called and because he was not called the claim should be sustained.

It is the position of the Carrier that it did not violate the Agreement. It argues there is only one Carmen's Roster on the property and that the work at issue in this case falls under the scope of covered work, therefore, any Carman who was qualified may perform the work. It was not necessary to call the Claimant on his rest day for this work because Pierce was qualified and readily available as he was on the property. Subsequently, it was necessary for the Carrier to keep him on duty to prime on overtime as no other Carmen that were on duty volunteered to stay and complete the task. It concluded by arguing that as identical claim identified as CM03-07 which it denied in 2003 and was not progressed any further by the Organization set the precedent for the future because it was not further appealed.

The Board has reviewed the record and determined that the Carrier stated that a claim identified as CM-03-07 was identical to the present case and declined by it in 2003 and the Organization chose not to appeal that decision. The Organization acknowledged that statement as being correct and offered no reason why the aforementioned claim was not taken to arbitration nor did it distinguish that claim as being different from the instant dispute. As far as this record reveals the parties have handled like situations since 2003 in the same manner as the prior declined case until the instant claim. In addition the facts further indicate that the work performed by Carman Pierce was a continuation of the work he had been performing all day. In Second Division Award 13935, involving the same parties, the Board stated: "Numerous awards have held the Carrier is not required to call any other Carmen to complete the work of others when it is continuous." The Board finds and holds that because the present case was not distinguished as being different than the former declined case on the property and the fact that the overtime work performed by Pierce was continuous with the work he had been doing there is no proof that the Carrier violated the Agreement.

AWARD