Award Number 17474
Docket Number SG-17840
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Robert C. McCandless, Referee
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD SIGNALMEN
SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY (Pacific Lines)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
Claim of the General Committee of the
Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the Southern Pacific Company that:
(a) The Southern Pacific Company violated the current Signalmen's
Agreement effective April 1, 1947 (reprinted April 1, 1958, including revisions) when it failed and/or declined to apply Rule 15,
which resulted
in the violation of Rule 70, when it did not assign
overtime work to Mr. Reisinger on April 23, 1967. The work in
question here, is work
which Mr
. Reisinger ordinarily performs
during straight time hours, but the Company elected to assign
this work to the Elk Grove Signal Maintainer during over time
hours in preference to Mr. Reisinger.
(b) Mr. W. H. Reisinger be allowed not less than two (2) hours and
forty (40) minutes at his assigned overtime rate for April 23,
1967.
(c) In future instances when it is necessary that material required
from the Sacramento Signal Shop be delivered after regular working hours, or on rest days and holidays, the handling of such
material be assigned to the employes who are regularly assigned
to the Sacramento Signal Shop, and who are covered by the
Classification Rules of the Signalmen's Agreement.
(Carrier's File: SIG 148-157.)
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS:
This dispute arose because a
signal maintainer, at the direction of his superior, entered the Sacramento
signal shop and disconnected a GCP rectifier from a test unit for use on his
territory. This occurred during the off hours of Claimant-leading signalman
W. H. Reisinger, who is assigned to the signal shop and who was available
for the call.
Claimant Reisinger is responsible for the testing and repairing of GCP
rectifiers such as the maintainer removed from the shop.
The Sacramento Signal Shop is under the direction of the Signal Engineer
and is, for all practical purposes a separate seniority district.
Notwithstanding the fact that Claimant, as the occupant of the position
in the signal shop, had a right to overtime work occurring in the shop in
preference to the Elk Grove signal maintainer, the Carrier has refused to
pay the instant claim.
hours, rest days and holidays, an employee covered by the Signalmen's
Agreement and assigned to the Sacramento Signal Shop be called to open
the shop."
4. By letter dated May 22, 1967 (Carrier's Exhibit "B"), Carrier's Sigral Engineer denied the claim.
5. By letter dated June 26, 1967 (Carrier's Exhibit "C"), Petitioner's
General Chairman appealed the claim to Carrier's Manager of Personnel,
who denied same by letter dated July 27, 1967 (Carrier's Exhibit "D"), on the
basis that:
"There is no rule in the agreement covering signalmen that
precludes a signal maintainer from being properly required to secure
material necessary to the performance of his work as in the instant
case, or that would require that the claimant be called in these circumstances to perform any portion of this work.
"The unspecific and unsupported assertions contained in your
letter with regard to alleged activities of a supervisory position at
the Sacramento Signal Shop, are without factual basis."
Copy of General Chairman's reply to that letter, dated September 15, 1967,
is attached as Carrier's Exhibit "E".
(Exhibits not reproduced)
OPINION OF BOARD:
Claimant here asks for overtime at his assigned
rate due to the fact that another employee was sent into the signal shop
to which Claimant was assigned during Claimant's off hours for a piece of
equipment. The claim is made that Claimant should have been called for
this work, and lacking that, should now be compensated therefor.
It us too well established by a preponderance of awards from this Board
that we can only look to the Agreement to ascertain the contemplation
of the parties in this regard. The instant agreement is silent on this point,
and to effect a change on this Line, it is incumbent upon both parties to
collectively so bargain. (See Awards 1571, 3419, 5520, 8073, 11587, 14500,
14975, 16667.)
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the
whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:
That the parties waived oral hearing;
That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act,
as approved June 21, 1934;
17474 3
That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the
dispute involved herein; and
That the Agreement was not violated.
AWARD
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
ATTEST: S. H. Schulty
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 26th day of September 1969.
Dissent to Award 17474, Docket SG-17840
The record in this case adequately established that if the rectifier in
question had been removed from the test panel during Claimant's assigned
hours, Claimant would have removed it. This fact plus the precedents cited
to the Referee in support of the proposition that overtime belongs to the
incumbent warranted an award sustaining the claim. To deny the case on
the grounds that the particular work and fact situation is not spelled out
in the Agreement is simply a display of rank legalism. Therefore, I dissent.
/s/ G.ORNDORFF
G. Orndorff
Labor Member
Central Publishing Co., Indianapolis, Ind. 46206 Printed in U.S.A.
17474 4