NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number MW-20107
Irwin M. Lieberman, Referee
(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
(1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it used Foreman M. T. McClure instead of Foreman C.
Clark on August 7 and 8, 1971 (System File F-9836/D-6663).
(2) As a consequence of the aforesaid violation, Foreman C. F. Pinkley now be allowed sixteen (1
time and one-half rate ($6.5512 per hour) plus pay at the same rate for all time
Foreman McClure was used in excess of eight (8) hours on each of the dates in
question.
OPINION OF BOARD: There is no dispute as to the facts involved. On Saturday
and Sunday, August 7 and 8, 1971, a System Steel Gang Foreman was absent from his regularly assi
family. Claimant C. F. Pinkley and M. T. McClure are regularly assigned as district gang foremen. Cl
in the foreman classification. M. T. McClure, the junior employe, was assigned
the two day vacancy arising from the System Steel Gang Foreman's absence. Claimant Pinkley claims Ar
(16) hours at the System Steel Gang Foreman's time and one-half rate plus pay
at the same rate for all time the junior employe was used in excess of eight (8)
hours on each of the dates in question.
Rule 3 of Article 2 reads:
"Rights accruing to employes under their seniority entitle
them to consideration for positions in accordance with their
relative length of service with the Railway, as hereinafter
provided."
We have consistently held that this rule applies to all positions,
whether it be a regular bulletined position, a temporary position or one that
is required to be performed only with overtime work. Seniority provisions are
included in agreements for the benefit of the senior employes. They seek to
protect and give preference in jobs, promotions and other opportunities to
employes with greater seniority. By analogy, this view is supported by Awards
2490, 2716, 2994, 4531, 6136, 15640 and 19758.
Award Number 20120 Page 2
Docket Number MW-20107
We are not impressed with Carrier's statement that had Claimant
requested the opportunity to fill the vacancy, the request would have been
honored. Claimant knew nothing of said vacancy when the junior employe was
selected to fill it; it is obvious that he could not request assignment
thereto. Further, the record indicates that Carrier was aware of its responsibility to notify employ
employe to perform the disputed overtime work and sustain the claim in its
entirety.
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
/, By Order of Third Division
i /,
ATTEST:~
ffC
~'1o'f f_,' (/L L t,~ #'1
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 25th day of January 1974.