NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number SG-26180
Eckehard Muessig, Referee
(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Missouri Pacific Railroad Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of
Railroad Signalmen on the Missouri Pacific Railroad
Company:
On behalf of Signalmen, Ken Shires and Keith Howry who are assigned
to Signal Gang 1800 located at Marlin, Texas, assigned hours 7:00 a.m. until
6:00 p.m., lunch period 12:00 noon to 1:00 p.m., rest days Saturday, Sunday
and holidays.
(a) Carrier violated the May 1, 1964 Signalmen's Agreement, as
amended, particularly Rule 307 when, on August 19, 20, 21 and 22 it required
and/or permitted a signalman and two assistants assigned to signal gang 1800,
who are junior signalmen to claimants of the same gang, to perform emergency
signal repair work in and around Houston, Texas on the above dates.
(b) Carrier should now be required to compensate claimants, Ken
Shires and Keith Howry, additional time at the signal mechanics overtime rate
equal to the man-hours (thirty seven (37) hours) and (forty-five (45) minutes)
of work performed by the junior signalmen and assistants, in connection with
the referred to signal work as consequence of the violation and/or the loss of
work opportunity. Carrier file K315-260."
OPINION OF BOARD: The Claimants were assigned to Signal Gang 1800 head
quartered at Marlin, Texas. This Gang worked four (4)
ten-hour days (Monday through Thursday) in lieu of the standard five (5)
eight-hour days. The Claimants live in Allen, Oklahoma, which is north of
Marlin, Texas, by approximately 260 miles.
At the close of the work day on Thursday, August 18, 1983, all
members of Signal Gang 1800 were asked to leave their telephone numbers with
their Foreman so that they could be called, if needed, for overtime work as a
result of hurricane damage in the Houston, Texas, area.
Subsequently, the Carrier, at approximately 10:00 P.M. on August 18,
1983, called some junior members of Gang 1800 to report for work in the
Houston, Texas, area at 7:00 A.M., Friday, August 19, 1983.
The Organization essentially contends that the Claimants were senior
to those called and were available for work. The Organization also argued
that the fact that the Carrier requested their telephone numbers is evidence
that the Carrier recognized that they were available for work. Consequently,
these senior employes should have been called. The Organization also asserts
that the Claim was untimely denied by the Carrier and, therefore, should be
allowed as presented on that basis.
Award Number 26407 Page 2
Docket Number SG-26180
Turning first to the timely handling issue, the facts show that the
Carrier's response was made within sixty (60) days of the date of receipt of
the appeal. We join numerous holdings of this Division which have found that,
if the date of the Carrier's denial is within sixty (60) days of the date of
receipt of the appeal, it is considered timely.
Concerning the merits, the Claimants went off duty at 6:00 P.M. on
Thursday. They then left to drive home to Allen, Oklahoma, approximately 260
miles from where they went off duty. Approximately four (4) hours later,
junior employes were called to report for work the next morning. While the
Organization's assertion that the Claimants should have been called pursuant
to Rule 307 is understandable, the Rule provides preference to senior employes
"who are available" and "when practicable to do so." This is a clear recognition of the parties that
is called. Implicit is that such judgments meet a standard of reasonableness.
Under the facts and circumstances of this record, we find that such a test has
been met and the Claim is 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;
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 Jr - Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 13th day of July 1987.