NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number MW-25965
Irwin M. Lieberman, Referee
(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(The Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company (Southern Region)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
1. The Carrier violated the Agreement when it assigned Machine
Operator B. W. Robbins instead of Machine Operator M. J. Williams to perform
overtime service on June 11, 1983 (System File C-TC-1839/MG-4100).
2. As a consequence of the aforesaid violation, Machine Operator M.
J. Williams shall be allowed ten (10) hours of pay at his time and one-half
rate."
OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant was regularly assigned to the position of Tie
Crane Operator with Tie Force 1252 with a work week of
Monday through Friday, with Saturdays and Sundays designated as rest days. On
Saturday June 11, 1983, Carrier assigned Motor Car Operator Robbins to operate
the Tie Crane (for ten hours of overtime) instead of calling Claimant, thus
triggering this dispute. Robbins had more seniority than Claimant on the
Machine Operator Seniority Roster but not on Tie Force 1252.
Organization argues that Claimant was entitled to the work in
question under the provisions of Rule 2(b), 28 (c) and 29(b), which provide:
"Rule 2(b)
Service Rights - Rights accruing to employees under
their seniority entitle them to consideration for
positions in accordance with their relative length
of service with the Railway Company as hereinafter
provided.
Rule 28(c)
Where work is required by the Carrier to be performed on a day which is not a part of any assign
unassigned employee who will otherwise not have
forty (40) hours of work that week; in all other
cases by the regular employee."
Award Number 26484 Page 2
Docket Number MW-25965
"Rule 29(b)
When necessary to work employees continuous with
and in advance of the regular tour, not continuous
with the regular tour, and on rest days and holidays when the employee is not regularly assigned to
work on holidays, senior employees on the particular gang or force, if qualified, will be given
preference if they are available."
The Carrier's argument focuses primarily on the type of work involved. Carrier maintains that th
regular assignment and the use of the same Tie Crane as that used by Claimant
does not per se entitle him to the work. Moreover, Carrier insists that the
work was different in that it was independent work which required a motor car
permit since track-use authorization was needed. Carrier pointed out that
Claimant was not qualified to perform the work since he did not possess a
motor car permit. Carrier concluded that Robbins was the senior available
employee qualified to perform the work who had a valid motor car permit.
The Board is persuaded that Carrier's position in this matter is
correct. Organization, in an attempt to show that the work was identical to
that performed during the regular work week, contended that it was not independent since a Foreman w
showing that the Foreman was present for more than an hour of the ten hour
period. It must be concluded that Claimant was not qualified to perform the
work since he did not possess the requisite motor car permit.
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.
Award Number 26484 Page 3
Docket Number MW-25965
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
Attest:
Nancy J. 11D ver - Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 9th day of September 1987.