NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number CL-20592
Irwin M. Lieberman, Referee
(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship
( Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and
( Station Employes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Western Weighing and Inspection Bureau
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood
(GL-7506) that:
(a) The Bureau violated the Clerks' Agreement at Chicago,
Illinois when it called a junior regularly assigned employe to make inspection of fresh meat on Dece
and failed to call senior regularly assigned employe, D. H. Sawicki,
also
(b) Claim that Mr. Sawicki be compensated for all losses sustained.
OPINION OF BOARD: The facts in this dispute, which are not contested,
indicate that Claimant refused to accept a call for
service on his rest day, November 25, 1972, allegedly for reasons of a
personal emergency. On November 28, 1972.Claimant's immediate supervisor
removed his name from the overtime list and so informed Claimant. On
December 14, 1972 a junior employe was called out on overtime for an in
spection job in preference to Claimant, giving rise to this claim.
The pertinent rules read as follows:
"RULE 34. (i) - Work on Unassigned Days -
Where work is required by the Bureau to be performed
on a day which is not a part of any assignment, it may
be performed by an available unassigned employe who
will otherwise not have 40 hours of work that week; in
all other cases by the regular employe."
The Memorandum of Agreement of October 6, 1966 (and Note 1
thereof) was entered into in order to clarify and regularize the procedure
for overtime work and was intended to be an application of Rule 34 (i)
above. Note 1 of that Agreement provides:
Award Number 20515 Page 2
Docket Number CL-20592
"NOTE 1: All regular employees desiring to work on
unassigned days or when it is necessary to perform
work either before or after their regular assigned
tour of duty, must indicate to the supervisor, their
willingness to do so in writing and must file their
name and acdress as well as the telephone number
where they can be reached. It is understood that any
regular employee not filing their name, address and
telephone number, in line with the foregoing, will be
considered unavailable and will not be called to perform work on an overtime basis.
If an employee desires to change his mind, he may do
so in writing, by giving the supervisor seven calendar days advance notice. All notices must be in d
by the supervisor and returned to the employee."
As Carrier put it, the sole question at issue is whether Carrier acted arbitrarily in removing Claim
Carrier conte-ded that Claimant had persistently and without justification
refused to accept overtime calls which were given him in accordance with
the October 6, 1966 Agreement. Carrier states that Claimant had attempted
to "pick and choose" the overtime which he would accept which was contrary
to the intent of the parties. Carrier argues that when the Agreement was
entered into in 1966 it was understood that the only time an employe can
refuse overtime is when there is good cause, such as personal illness.
Carrier concluded that Claimant's conduct clearly disqualified him from
the overtime list.
Petitioner asserts that the only way an employe 'a name may be
removed from the overtime list is by his own action. It is argued further
that Claimant is entitled to the protection of the Agreement and that Carrier's action was arbitrary
1966 understanding.
It is apparent that there is a difference of opinion as to work
assignments and Claimant's rights with respect to the overtime list. Even
assuming that Carrier is completely correct in its attitude towards Claima= and the overtime problem
the contract, which in this case are abundently clear; there are no provisions giving Carrier the ri
it does not have the right to arbitrarily change or ignore Agreement provisions. Discipline, with at
but not unilateral removal from the overtime list. The Claim must be
sustained.
Award Number 20515 Page 3
Docket Number CL-29592
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
ATTEST:
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 8th day·of November 1974.