NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number SG-22011
Robert A. Franden, Referee
(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Consolidated Rail Corporation
( (Former Penn Central Transportation Company)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood
of Railroad Signalmen on the former New York, New
Haven and Hartford Railroad Company:
Case No. BRS NH-27
Claim on behalf of W. J. Lindopp and R. S. Eaton, the senior
signalmen in the Providence, Rhode Island, signal gang, Boston Seniority
District Roster, for compensation at the signalman's
overtime rate
for
the following amounts of overtime worked by Maintainer W. Pacelt and
Signal Gang Foreman E. Mernick:
Naiiitainer Pacelt at Mansfield Foreman Mernick at Providence
April 21, 1975 - 4 Hours at time and one-half ----- Same
April 22, 1975 - 7.5 Hours at time and one-half ----- Same
April 23, 1975 - 7.5 Hours at time and one-half ----- Same
April 24, 1975 - 7 Hours at time and one-half ----- Same
April 25, 1975 - 8 Hours at time and one-half ----- Same
April 25, 1975 - 1.5 Hours at double time
--------- Samc
April 26, 1975 - 4 Hours at time and one-half ----- Same
April 29, 1975 - 8 Hours at time and one-half
----- Same
April 29, 1975 - 1.5 Hours at double time --------- Same
April 30, 1975 - 6.5 Hours at time and one-half
----- Same
Totals 52.5 Hours at time and one-half
3. Hours at double time
Mr. W. J. Lindopp and Mr. R. S. Eaton should each receive fiftytwo and one-half (52.5) hours pay at
hours pay at double time because of their loss of work opportunity.
OPINION OF BOARD: This claim is based on an alleged violation of
the Agreement by Carrier when it utilized a signal
Gang Foreman and a signal Maintainer to perform overtime work in
connection with the installation of a new signal system. It is the
Award Number
22069
Docket Number SG-22011
Page 2
position of the Organization that the claimant Signal Gang Signalmen
should have been called for the work in that they had been performing
installation work during their regularly assigned hours.
The Claimants have relied on the rules setting forth the
qualifications for the various positions (1-6), the seniority rule (28)
and the bulletin rule (54) as the contractual basis for their claim.
Nothing in the rules cited, or in the Agreement as a whole
for that matter, prohibits the assignment of the overtime work in
question as done by the Carrier in the instant matter. There has been
no showing that the work in question was reserved to the Claimants as
opposed to other employes under the Agreement. None of the rules cited
is a work reservation rule.
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 not violated.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
ATTEST:
a
A
/ 4 & W41
" V~
Executive Secretary
J
J E' Gy
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 31st day of :day
1978.
