(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company

(1) The Agreement was violated when Section Foreman D. S. Devault was not permitted to perform overtime service on his assigned section territory (Section 102) on June 24 and 25, 1976 and the Carrier instead used Foreman B. C. Hindman for such service LSystem File 1-25 (33)/E-349-11 E-342J.

 (2) As a consequence of the aforesaid violation, the Carrier shall now pay Section Foreman D. S. Devault the exact amount of pay he would have received if he had been permitted to perform the work mentioned in Part (1) above, i.e., twelve and one-half (12'x) hours (6:30 p.m. on June 24 to 7:00 a.m. on June 25, 1976) at his double time rate and the difference between double time and straighttime rate for eight (8) hours be


Firstly, was carrier obligated to give claimant preference in making the contested assignment?

 Secondly, did carrier, under the unique and particular circumstances of this case, act permissibly when it did not call claimant to perform this assignment?

 Rule 30(F) requires that, "The senior available men shall be given preference in the assignment of overtime work on their home section."

 It does not mandate work exclusivity, but does require priority calling of the most senior available men.


A review of the record indicates that claimant was the most senior available person in his home section and thus pursuant to the agreement, he should have been called. But an unusual situation was present.

 Claimant was called to work on a serious derailment near Camden, Tennessee at approximately 5:30 A.M. on June 23, 1976. He worked continuously at that situs until 6:30 P.M. on June 24, 1976 or a total of 37 consecutive hours.

 Inasmuch as he was the most senior employe available for overtime work, carrier did not call him to assume the watchman's assignment because of his apparent physical exhaustion.

 Carrier is entrusted with a public responsibility to provide and maintain a safe and orderly railroad system. It had just experienced a significant derailment. A strong presumption existed that claimant was physically enervated. Had he continued to work for the next 12'~ hours and then report to his regular assignment at 7:00 A.M. on June 25, 1976, he would have remained awake and working for approximately 58 hours.

 This state of affairs was ill conducive to the parties mutual best interests, especially, where as here, a potential safety problem existed.

 Under these atypical circumstances, carrier did not act impermissibly when it did not call claimant to perform the watchman's assignment.

        His physical condition warranted this action.


But, aside from this anomalous and mitigative situation, Rule 30(F) must still be observed when overtime assignments affecting covered employes are made.

        We will deny the claim.

                    Award Number 22424 Page 3

                    Docket Number Mb7-22433


        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.


                        NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                        By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: ~n
 Executive Secretary

        Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 15th day of June 1979.