STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the Southern Pacific Company:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Claimant V. M. Osman is a regularly assigned Signalman on Signal Gang #2, Tulare, California. During the first week of October, 1967, Carrier assigned him to relieve the Signal Maintainer position at Exeter. During that week, on October 4, Carrier used Signalman B. Putman, an employee not held subject to call under Rule 16 of the Signalmen's Agreement, to perform four hours overtime work on the Exeter maintenance district.
Under date of November 17, 1967, the Brotherhood's Local Chairman filed a claim on behalf of Mr. Osman for four hours pay at the time and one-half rate. As indicated by correspondence attached hereto as Brotherhood's Exhibit Nos. 1 through 7, that claim was handled in the usual and proper manner on the property, up to and including the highest officer of the Carrier designated to handle such disputes, without receiving satisfactory settlement.
The basis of the claim is that Carrier failed to call Claimant in violation of Rule 16, resulting in a loss of earnings for which he should be reimbursed in accordance with Rule 70.
There is an agreement in effect between the parties to this dispute, bearing an effective date of April 1, 1947 (reprinted April 1, 1958 in-
conversation with former Assistant Signal Supervisor, admitted that he would not have been qualified to actually perform the necessary work. It is also our understanding that Signalman Putman, who actually performed the work involved, had been previously engaged in such work during hours on the date involved, and that in performing this overtime he was merely continuing on with work in which he was already engaged."
In addition to the foregoing, by letter dated February 19, 1968 (Carrier's Exhibit "F"), Carrier's Assistant Manager of Personnel forwarded copy of statement dated January 31, 1968, signed by Carrier's Assistant Signal Supervisor in connection with the circumstances involved in this dispute.
By letter dated March 7, 1968 (Carrier's Exhibit "G"), Petitioner's General Chairman reviewed matters discussed in conference held on January 30, 1968, regarding this claim.
OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant occupied position of SignalmenRelief Signal Maintainer at Tulare on Carrier's Joaquin Division. This position was assigned to work as signalman on Signal Gang No. 2 unless required to relieve other positions. During the first week of October, 1967, Claimant was assigned to relieve a vacationing Signal Maintainer on the Exeter Branch. During this time (first week in October), trouble developed in the operation of the electronic track circuit and Signalman B. E. Putman with assigned duties of repairing and maintaining such equipment, was assigned to correct the trouble. Putman was unable to correct the trouble by 4:00 P.M. (the end of his regularly assigned daily shift) and he continued to work an additional four hours at the overtime rate. The Organization contends that Rule 16 was violated by Carrier when it used compensated in accordance with Rule 70. Said rules are:
Carrier contends that the Organization has presented no probative evidence establishing Claimant's right to the overtime claimed herein for overtime accrued. Carrier further contends that Claimant was not qualified to perform the involved work.
This Board finds that Award No. 34 of Public Law Board No. 15 is controlling in this dispute, and, therefore, this claim will be denied.