Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 27701
THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-27308
89-3-86-3-421
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee John C. Fletcher when award was rendered.
(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(National Railroad Passenger Corporation
(Amtrak) - Northeast Corridor
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
(1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it assigned Plumber J.
Scheck to perform overtime service on February 10, 1985 instead of calling and
using Plumber F. Lawler who was senior, available and willing to perform that
service (System File NEC-BMWE-SD-1266).
(2) Plumber F. Lawler shall be allowed six and one-half (6 1/2)
hours of pay at his time and one-half rate."
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.
Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.
On February 10, 1985, a Sunday, Carrier needed a plumber to make a
repair on a frozen water line at its Penn Coach Yard. It first attempted to
call Claimant, however, his phone was busy at the time. Carrier then called
the next senior plumber who responded and worked 6 1/2 hours on the repair.
Claimant is seeking compensation at the time and one-half rate account not
being used.
It is our view that in the circumstances of this case, a single phone
call that cannot be completed because of a busy signal is an insufficient
attempt to locate a senior employee for overtime work. In Third Division
Awards 4189, 16473, 17062, 17182 and 19658 we upheld claims on the basis that
a single phone call did not constitute a reasonable effort to contact an
employee with an offer of work he was entitled to accept. We will do the same
in this matter and sustain the Claim for 6 1/2 hours pay.
Form 1 Award No. 27701
Page 2 Docket No. NW-27308
89-3-86-3-421
It is argued that in the event reparations are required that payment
should be at the straight time rate rather than at the time and one-half rate
as claimed. We have reviewed a number of Awards on this point which exhaustively considered this iss
prevailing practice, concurred in by the Organization, is to allow straight
time for missed overtime work. On the basis of this practice, accepted in the
past by the organization, the Claim will be allowed at the 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. er·- Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 2nd day of February 1989.