NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number CL-25900
James Robert Cox, Referee
(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,
(Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Chicago and North Western Transportation Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood
(GL-9950) that:
1. The Carrier violated Rules 9 and 31 of the controlling Agreement when on October 6, 1983,
date of October 19, 1979 to fill Position ##032, Yard Clerk, Clinton, Iowa
instead of calling Mr. W. E. Mast, seniority date of June 5, 1978 for the
job.
2. The Carrier shall now be required to compensate Mr. W. E. Mast
eight (8) hours' pay at the time and one-half rate, at the rate of Position
##032, for October 6, 1983, account this Agreement violation.
OPINION OF BOARD: The Carrier called an employe junior to Claimant Mast
on overtime in the Yard Clerk position at Clinton, Iowa,
October 6, 1983. After there had been no response to a single telephone call
to Claimant's residence, the job was filled by calling the next individual on
the Overtime Board. The call was allegedly made at 2:30 p.m. and the job
assignment commenced at 3:59 p.m.
Claimant contends that he was home at 2:30 but did not hear the
phone ring. The Organization argues that the single call was not a reasonable effort to reach Mast a
have made a second call. They cite several Awards requiring Carriers to make
"a reasonable effort" to contact employes otherwise entitled to perform
overtime work.
The Carrier contends they were not required to make more than one
call since no one answered the telephone. They explain that this is not a
case where there is evidence that the number may have been misdialed, that
the line was busy, or that another individual answered and responded that
Claimant was expected to return in a few minutes. The Agreement does not
require that any particular number of telephone calls be made. They further
assert, that even if a second call should have been made, there is no basis
for a remedy at the overtime rate since no actual work was performed. Third
Division Awards 16033, 18942 and 19884. The Organization responds that the
remedy argument had not been raised on the property and should not be considered by the Board. Award
19028. They cite several decisions where the Third Division has allowed
claims for compensation that the individual would have received had the
contract not been violated, including Awards 13928, 13946, 14074, 12769,
19947 and 20413. In view of our determination, we do not reach this issue in
this case.
Award Number 25691 Page 2
Docket Number CL-25900
The evidence does not establish that Carrier was dilatory in their
efforts to assign the overtime work. They had only an hour and one half to
contact an available employe who would have to get ready and travel to the
property during this time period. There was no indication that the Carrier
had previously bypassed senior employes in overtime assignments through delay
in contacting them. Under these circumstances, we find that the Carrier did
make a reasonable effort to contact Claimant.
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:
Nancy er - Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 14th day of November 1985.
RECEIVED
LABOR MEMBER DISSENT TO
"rov
1 0 rc:~;
AWARD 25691 DOCKET N0. CL-259pY·V,(
D'V1SIOnl
(REFEREE JAMES ROBERT COX)
The Majority opinion has erred in it's decision which is
contrary to the weighted authority within the industry. On
page two of their opinion they offer the following conclusion:
"The evidence does not establish that Carrier was
dilatory in their efforts to assign the overtime
work. They had only an hour and one half to contact
an available employe who would have to get ready
and travel to the property during this time period.
There was no indication that the Carrier had previously
bypassed senior employes in overtime assignments
through delay in contacting them. Under these
circumstances, we find that the Carrier did make a
reasonable effort to contact Claimant."
It was clearly presented in the record and before the Board
that the hour and one half for contacting an employe for service
is a standard calling period within the industry and has been
the historical calling period used on this property. It was further
pointed out that the Claimant resided in the town of Clinton, Iowa,
and was rested, qualified and available for service as he never
left home and was near his telephone at all times.
The Carrier states that their records verify the fact that the
Agent made a single call to the Claimant's residency. The Carrier's
alleged records were never offered on the property or before the
Board, but for the sake of argument and assuming that one call
was made the single issue to have been decided by this Board was
whether or not the Carrier made a sufficent effort to call the
Claimant for the vacancy. One possible attempt is not considered
reasonable and is a violation of Rules 9 and 31. A legion of
Awards from this Board have held that a single attempt to call
an employe for work is not sufficent cause to run around him and
use a junior employe for potential overtime work.
Award is palably in error and flies in the face of
far better reasoned Awards such as Third Division Awards 17116,
17533, 4189, 16279, 17183, 18425, 18870, 19383, 16033, 18942, and
19884 to name just a few. Award is of absolutly no precedential
value and we strenuously dissent to it.
'J
William Robert Miller Labor Member
Date November 13, 1985
AWARD N0.25691 DOCKET N0. CL-2590(