NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number SG-19878
Irwin M. Lieberman, Referee
(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Rail
road Signalmen on the Louisville and Nashville Railroad
Company:
On behalf of Signal Maintainer M. W. Pressnell for two hours and forty
minutes at time and one-half pay account not called and allowed a reasonable
time to report to bond rail at Mile 307.6, Northbound Main Track, Decatur, Alabama, on November 24,
OPINION OF BOARD: There is substantial agreement as to the facts in this dispute.
On November 24, 1970, an Assistant Roadmaster found a stripped joint
at about 12:20 P.M. and requested that Claimant, a Signal Maintainer, come and
bond the joint. Claimant went to the site of the repair job and was told that
due to rail contraction the joint could not be pulled together; he was told
that the joint would be repaired later that day. The Assistant Roadmaster decided that the joint was
commencing before 4:00 P.M. When the work was completed the Assistant Roadmaster got to the Yard off
off duty at 4:00 P.M. and remained at home until around 6:00 P.M., at which time
he left his house. At a little after 6:00 P.M. the Chief Dispatcher called
Claimant's home indicating that he was needed to bond the joint and was told by
Claimant's wife that he would be back shortly. The wife was told that inasmuch
as he was not home to "forget it" and that the adjoining maintainer would be
called. The adjoining Signal Maintainer was called and performed the work in
question.
Rule 18 (a) of the Agreement provides:
"(a) Employes assigned to or filling maintenance positions
will notify the management where they may ordinarily be called.
If on specific occasions they desire to be off call, they will
so advise the person designated for the purpose. Unless registered off call, they will be considered
called for service to be performed on their assigned territory
and will respond as promptly as possible when called."
Award Number 20119 Page 2
Docket Number SG-19878
Carrier urges that it conformed to the requirements of the Rule quoted
by telephoning Claimant's home and he was not available. Further it is argued
that the Dispatchers have been unable to rely on him in the past under similar
circumstances. With respect to the last argument, Carrier has failed to substantiate that position w
In Award 16279 we held that ",...Carrier is required to make a reasonable rather than a minimal
involving the same parties, the same rule, and a related dispute, we stated that
the rule imposes a burden on Carrier to make a reasonable effort to communicate
with an employee and we held that four attempted calls were reasonable. In the
instant case, with no emergency situation existing, we cannot consider one
attempted call a reasonable effort. Therefore we shall sustain the claim.
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;
That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the
dispute involved herein; and
That the Agreement was violated.
A W A R D
Claim sustained.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
:3y Order of Third Division
ATTEST:
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 25th day of January 1974.