PENN CENTRAL TRANSPORTATION COMPANY
(Northeastern Region, Springfield Division)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the Boston and Albany Railroad (New York Central Railroad Co., Lessee):
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: There is an agreement between the present parties bearing an effective date of April 1, 1952, which is by reference made a part of the record in this dispute. Pertinent to this matter is Rule 20 thereof reading:
Mr. J. O'Donnell, an employe junior in seniority to Claimant J. Lynch, was used to work overtime from 5:30 P. M., February 17 to 7:00 A. M., February 18, 1969. Inasmuch as Mr. Lynch, because of his superior seniority, had a demand right to the disputed work, claim was filed on his behalf as shown in our Exhibit No. 1. As evidenced by our Exhibits Nos. 2 through 9, this dispute was thereafter 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 a satisfactory settlement.
CARRIER'S STATEMENT OF FACTS: There is on file with this Division an agreement governing rules and rates of pay applicable to employes represented by the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the Springfield Division of the Northeastern Region of the Penn Central Transportation Company, effective April 1, 1952, which, by this reference, is made a part of Carrier's submission.
At approximately 5:30 P. M., February 17, 1969, Signal 51.32 at Webster Junction was destroyed by vandalism. As this signal is located on Carrier's main line, which handles passenger and freight trains, Signalman O'Donnell, who lives approximately 10 miles away, was called to make the necessary repairs, which were completed at 7:00 A. M., February 18, 1969.
Claimant Lynch lives approximately sixty miles away from the incident and consequently was not called to cover this emergency.
On February 20, 1969, the General Chairman filed a claim in behalf of Claimant with Signal Supervisor Lombardi, for not being used to perform this overtime work. The claim was denied.
The claim has been properly denied and progressed on the property in the usual manner in accordance with the grievance procedure in applicable agreeDient provisions up to and including the Assistant General Manager, Empioye Relations (now Superintendent, Labor Relations and Personnel), who is the highest appeals officer on this Region of the Company designated to handle claims for compensation alleged to be due.
OPINION OF BOARD: About 5:30 P. M., February 17, 1969, signal 51.32 at Webster Junction was destroyed. Signalman O'Donnell, who lived a distance of 10 miles from the destroyed signal, was called to make the necessary repairs. The damaged signal was repaired at 7:00 A. M. on February 18, 1969 -13Yz hours later. (Claimant, senior to O'Donnell, and who lived 60 miles from the damaged signal, was not called. The Organization takes the position that Carrier violated Rule 20 of the Agreement by not calling Claimant for this overtime work. Carrier contends that because of the damaged signal on Carrier's main line, an emergency existed; and that because of the emergency, it (,Carrier) could exercise its managerial prerogative to call the signalman who lived the closest to the trouble to make the necessary repairs.
It is undisputed that Claimant, because of seniority, had priority over O'Donnell to be called. Unless Carrier proves that such an emergency existed, the senior employe should be called to make the necessary repairs. We believe that the record falls short of proving an emergency of such import that would allow Carrier to ignore seniority rules in this instance Train crews are instructed to treat a signal that is out in its most restrictive position, thereby eliminating danger. It took 13%z hours to repair this signal, and this Claimant could have arrived only a short time after the junior employe reported for this repair work. Therefore, Carrier violated the Agreement when it called the junior employe in preference to Claimant. Under Rule 6(c) of the Agreement Claimant's time would have begun at the time called and would have ended at the time he returned to his home station. Therefore, this claim will be sustained.