Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 27638
THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-27044
88-3-86-3-85
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Herbert L. Marx, Jr. when award was rendered.

(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:


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

(1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it assigned Mr. J. Hartman to perform overtime service on September 9, 1984 instead of calling and using Mr. B. Ecker who was available, senior and willing to perform that service (System Docket CR-1246).

(2) Claimant B. Ecker shall be allowed twelve (12) hours of pay at his time and one-half rate because of the violation referred to in Part (1) hereof."

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 employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.

This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.



The Claimant is a Boom Truck Operator who also holds seniority as a Foreman. His claim concerns overtime work performed by a junior employee, who also holds Foreman seniority, on Sunday, September 9, 1984, as a Pilot for Track Broom BR 1147.

The Carrier's response was that the junior employee worked as Pilot for the Track Broom "during the entire workweek preceding the date of the overtime," while the Claimant "held a vehicle operator position and worked in that capacity for the entire workweek."

In response, the organization provided signed statements from two employees contending that the Claimant had performed the piloting work on Friday, September 7, 1984. The Carrier provided no evidence on the property
Form 1 Award No. 27638
Page 2 Docket No. MW-27044
88-3-86-3-85

contrary to these statements. The Carrier offered a time record sheet for that date in its Submission, but the Board cannot consider this, as it was not presented on the property. Further, this time sheet does not demonstrate to the Board any proof of the Carrier's contention concerning the Claimant's work assignment immediately prior to September 9, 1984.







Based on evidence presented on the property, the Board finds that the Claimant was denied his seniority rights under Rule 17 to perform the piloting work on September 9, 1984.

The Board finds that the claim for pay at the premium rate is appropriate, in keeping with gener fact that such was not contested by the Carrier in the claims handling procedure on the property.





                          By Order of Third Division


Attest:
        Nancy J. r - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 16th day of December 1988.