Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 27132
THIRD DIVISION Docket No. SG-27310
88-3-86-3-425
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee John E. Cloney when award was rendered.
(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Consolidated Rail Corporation
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
"Claim on behalf of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of
Railroad Signalmen on the Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail):
On behalf of Brother K. S. Burcham, of Signal Gang 9 for 8.5 hours at
his punitive rate of pay account of Carrier violated the current Signalmen's
Agreement, as amended, particularly Rule 5-A-2(a) when, on February 5, 1985,
it used two junior Signalmen in the regular 'Hump Gang' to perform overtime
signal work at Conway. Carrier file: SD-2218."
FINDINGS:
The Third Division of the Adjustment Board upon the whole record and
all the evidence, finds that:
The carrier or carriers and the employe or employees involved in this
dispute are respectively carrier and employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approve
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the
dispute involved herein.
Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.
In late January and on February 1, 1985, Signal Gang No. 9, headquartered at Mingo Junction, Ohi
Conway Yards worked together performing signal work on retarders at Conway
Yard. February 2, 1985, was a normal rest day. On February 1, 1985, Carrier
assigned some of the members of Signal Gang No. 5 to work the rest day. Claimant of Signal Gang No.
Rule 5-A-2 of the Agreement provides:
"(a) When it is known in advance of the end of a
tour of duty that a portion of a gang is to be
worked on a subsequent tour of duty (not a part of
their regular assignment) or continuous with the
current tour of duty, those with the greatest
seniority in the class who were actually performing
the work prior to the overtime will be given
first opportunity for the overtime."
Form 1 Award No. 27132
Page 2 Docket No. SG-27310
88-3-86-3-425
On March 10, 1985, the Organization filed claim alleging that "On
February 2, 1985, two men were requested to work overtime, that are junior in
seniority . . We note that the claim as progressed to this Board cites
February 5, 1985, as the date of the alleged violation. This is an obvious
typographical error. All handling on the property referred to the February 2
date.
On May 6, 1985, Carrier declined the claim because Claimant was
assigned to Gang 9 under the direction of Foreman Guy on January 30, 31 and
February 1, 1985, and no employees assigned to Foreman Guy worked on February
2, 1985.
On June 2, 1985, the Organziation appealed noting that Rule 5-A-2
does not define the term "Gang" but asserted:
"historically all men working at the same job at a
given location have been described as a Gang
without the requisition of all of the men working
for the same foreman."
This assertion was neither refuted or commented upon during handling on the
property.
Carrier argues Gang 9 was used at Conway to assist the Conway Hump
Gang due to the large amount of work necessary to rebuild the retarders. Each
gang worked under its own foreman.
Rule 5-A-2 does not define the term "gang" but we believe Carriers'
limiting of the term to groups of employees supervised by the same foreman is
too restrictive and unwarranted. Here employees of a class (Signal Employees)
were all assigned to the same task (rebuilding retarders) at the same location
at the same time. We hold the group constituted a "gang" within the meaning
of Rule 5-A-2 and therefore those "with the greatest seniority in the class"
were entitled to work the overtime.
The Organization stresses Claimant is entitled to be paid at the
punitive rate, but we do not agree. Claimant was not required to perform work
on February 2, 1985. While we disagree with Carrier's interpretation of Rule
5-A-2 there is no evidence suggesting anything other than a good faith attempt
at compliance. Compensation is to be at straight time rate.
A W A R D
Claim sustained in accordance with the Findings.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
Attest:
ancy J. D Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 23rd day of June 1988.