(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE: -(

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad

(a) Carrier violated the Signalmen's Agreement, particularly Rules 4 and 37 among others as well as the established past practice of using Signal Maintainers assigned to John Sevier Retarder Yard in seniority order, of the class needed, for overtime work, when they used Assistant Signal Maintainer C. E. Scalf.to work overtime on December 22, 1980 to fill the Second Shift Signal Maintainer's position in the retarder yard.

 (b) Carrier should now be required to compensate First Shift Signal Maintainer D. E. Ridenour and Relief Signal Maintainer R. D. O'Brien for this loss of work opportunity in an amount equal to four (4) hours each at their overtime rate, in addition to any other pay they have received, because they were denied the right to perform overtime work in the retarder yard and because the Carrier used a junior employee to perform the overtime work." (General Chairman file: SR-224. larrier file: SG-493).

 OPINION OF BOARD: The instant case centers on the Organization claim that the
 Carrier assigned an Assistant Signal Maintainer rather than a Signal Maintainer to overtime work on December 22, 1980 to replace a Maintainer who was ill. Contention of the Carrier is that since the Assistant Maintainer was already scheduled to begin working the shift of the ill Maintainer in question when the latter was to start his vacation on December 25, 1990, that it was appropriate to have the Assistant Maintainer begin his relief on December 22nd, rather than December 25th. Since this implied a shift change for the Assistant Maintainer Rule 29 regulating overtime was activated.

 A review of the record before the Board shows that Carrier erred in not following directives of the current Agreement as outlined by Rule 37(b). This provision states that senior maintenance employes above assistant class assigned to maintenance positions in a retarder yard should be given priority before any other qualified emp:oye is called. From the record before it, it appears that Carrier argument is based on administrative convenience rather ,than contractual mandate.

 Rule 46 cited by the Carrier in its ex parte submission, as well as Carrier reference to past practices represent new material not submitted during the handling of this case on property and as such cannot considered by the Board (Third Division Awards 20178; 20841; 21463; 22054).


FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving the
 parties to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon, and
 upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:

 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.

        Tha the Agreement was violated.


                          A W A R D


        Claim sustained.


                              NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUST14ENT BOARD

                              By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: i el ~, " l lr&~
                  ncy J. Dever cutive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 3rd day of August 1983.
                                        RtCEIVED


                                        SEP ~ t


                                        Ch/c°9o Office.~


                                    t s