Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 27830
THIRD DIVISION Docket No. SG-27648
89-3-87-3-103
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Rodney E. Dennis when award was rendered.
(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company (former B60)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim on behalf of the General Committee of the
Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the Baltimore
and Ohio Railroad Co. (B60):
On behalf of Baltimore East End Signalman William L. Bartley, assigned to Signal Force No. 1691,
of pay, account of the Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement, as
amended, particularly, Rule 14(g), when on the following dates it used a
junior employee to perform overtime:
Date hours Date hours
July 27, 1985 8.5 Aug. 6, 1985 4
July 25, 1985 2 Aug. 8, 1985 3
July 26, 1985 4 Aug. 10, 1985 12
July 28, 1985 12 Aug. 11, 1985 14
July 29, 1985 5 Aug. 12, 1985 2.5
July 30, 1985 4 Aug. 13, 1985 2.5
July 31, 1985 4 Aug. 14, 1985 4
Aug. 1, 1985 3 Aug. 20, 1985 4
Aug. 3, 1985 3 Aug. 21, 1985 4
Aug. 5, 1985 4 Aug. 22, 1985 2
Carrier file 2-SG-808"
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.
Form 1 Award No. 27830
Page 2 Docket No. SG-27648
89-3-87-3-103
During the month of July and August 1985, Carrier assigned a Signalman to overtime service on se
assigned and the Organization filed a Claim on his behalf contending that he
should have been assigned the overtime work.
Carrier denied the Claim on the basis that Claimant was working overtime in his own gang and was
and he did not request overtime work on the particular job in question. This
Board has reviewed the record and the pertinent Rule in this case:
"Rule 14(g)
When overtime service is required of a part of a gang
or group of employes, the senior employes of the class
involved, who are available, shall have preference of
such overtime if they so desire."
The Board has discovered from the record that the Signalman assigned
is assigned to Force No. 1691 and the overtime work was in connection with
Force No. 1691. Claimant was a member of Force 1693 and, as such, had no
preferential right to overtime worked in Force No. 1691. Rule 14(g) clearly
states that the senior employee of a gang or group of employees shall have
preferential rights to overtime. Force 1691 is the qualified gang in the
instance and not Force 1693. Claimant has no rights under Rule 14(g) outside
of his gang.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
Attest:
Nancy ver·- Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 13th day of April 1989.