(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE:


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



·1. Carrier violated current Signalmen's Agreement, particularly Article II, Section 13-(b)-2, in not compensating Foreman EZem for planned overtime on August 2, 1980.

2. Carrier should now be required to compensate Signal Foreman G. S. EZem for 8 hours at time and one-half for planned work performed on August 2, 1980.· /general Chairman file: 3.13-380. Carrier file: 14-1580-180-15.7·

OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant G. S. E1em is a Signal Gang Foreman paid a monthly
salary. On July 30, 1980, a derailment occurred that
destroyed signal equipment. Wreckage was cleared and track work done so that
trains could move through the location the same day. On Saturday, August 2,
Claimant's gang worked overtime in order to have signal appurtenance ready
for installation when track work was completed. Claimant, on instructions of
his Supervisor, indicated on his time card that his Saturday, August 2, work
was done on planned overtime. Carrier did not pay the overtime on the theory
that Claimant was a monthly paid employe and, as such, he does not get paid
above his monthly salary for incidental overtime. The pertinent Agreement
language is as follows:















                    Locket Number SG-24498


This Board has reviewed the facts of the instant case and does not agree with Carrier's analysis of the case. We are not persuaded that overtime work planned days in advance, as is the case here, meets the requirements of incidental or emergency overtime. Given the facts as presented in this record, it must be concluded that Claimant's Supervisor was correct when he instructed Claimant to submit his time on Saturday, August 2, 1980, as planned overtime.

        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:
        Nancy J. r - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois this 15th day of April 1985.