(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

(Southern Pacific Transportation Company

(Western Lines)


STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

 (1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it assigned junior Welder L. C. Gutierrez to perform overtime service on September 26, 1982 instead of calling and using Welder P. G. Morales, who was senior, available and willing to perform that service (Carrier's File MofW 125-344).

 (2) Welder P. G. Morales shall be allowed fourteen (14) hours of pay at his time and one-half rate because of the violation referred to in Part (1) hereof."

 OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant was employed by Carrier as a Welder assigned to the
 System Track Welding Subdepartment with headquarters at
 Tehachapi, California. Welder Gutierrez was also assigned to the same group
 and both men had rest days on Saturdays and Sundays. Claimant was more senior
 than Gutierrez. On Sunday, September 26, 1982, a derailment occurred at
 Caliente which required the maintenance forces at Tehachapi to repair the
 track and roadbed damage. Arc welding work was required at the derailment
 site. The truck regularly assigned to Gutierrez had arc welding equipment on
 it while Claimant's truck did not. Claimant, though available, was not called
 and Gutierrez was called out to perform the required work. Gutierrez received
 14 hours pay at the overtime rate for the work, triggering the dispute herein.

 Claimant alleged that he called the Acting Relief District Manager who had been in charge of the repairs at the derailment site and asked why, though available, he had not been called out. According to Claimant he was told that the Relief District Manager had not known that he was the senior Welder.

 The Organization argues that Claimant was entitled to the work in question in preference to a junior employe, and cites several Awards in support of that position. In addition, it is urged that Carrier's assertion of an emergency is not supported by any evidence of that circumstance. In that context the Organization notes that Carrier's reliance on Rule 25(b) is misplaced since the Carrier is entitled to use the most readily available employe only in connection with an emergency. In addition it is maintained that Claimant was readily available to perform the work but was not called.
                        Docket Number MW-25982


Carrier asserts that there are no rules requiring Carrier to call Welders for overtime in accordance with their seniority. Further, Carrier states that the assignment of work is its prerogative as an inherent management right, so long as no Agreement. It is argued also that seniority does not in itself convey any rights that are not provided in the Agreement. In addition, Carrier notes that there had indeed been an emergency on the Sunday in question and thus Carrier had broader authority than under normal circumstances. As an additional aspect of the project, Carrier states that arc welding was required and Gutierrez was the employe regularly assigned to perform that type of work, while Claimant was not.

 Whether or not there was an emergency, the critical issue in this matter is whether Claimant's seniority rights were ignored and abused by Carrier's selection of Gutierrez to perform the overtime work. An examination of Third Division Award 24240, involving the same organization as that herein as well as Carrier on its T&L Lines, is useful. In that dispute the issue was the applicability of the seniority provisions of the Agreement to the assignment of overtime. In tha overtime in question. In this dispute no such rule provisions exist. There is nothing in either Rule 25 or Rule 28 (or in any other rule) which entitles an employe such as Claimant herein to overtime preference by virtue of seniority order. While this B rights must be specified in the Agreement in order to be protected. As we said in Third Division Award 18091:

        "It is axiomatic that seniority is governed strictly by the provisions in the Agreement. Employes are entitled to no more than the contract authorizes. In the absence of any specific seniority rights, Carrier has the sole prerogative to assign employes when and where needed. The extent and limitation of the employe's rights are to be determined from the language in the negotiated Agreement."


From the foregoing, it is apparent that there is no rule support for the organization's position. Therefore, the Claim must be denied.

        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;
                        Award Number 26252 Page 3

                        Docket Number MW-25982


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


Attes
        Nancy ver - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 20th day of March 1987.