Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 29376
THIRD DIVISION Docket No. SG-29512
92-3-90-3-445
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Dana E. Eischen when award was rendered.
(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim on behalf of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railr
Corporation (AMTRAK):
Claim on *~ehalf of Mr. Richard J. Morris, Boston Commuter Division,
Employee 1/025-62-5916, currently consigned, since October 1988, to the position of Signal Trainee i
Street, Charlestown, Massachusetts 02129. His Hours of Service are Monday
thru Friday: 7:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. at the hourly rate of $11.23 per hour.
(a) Carrier violated the current agreement between the National
Railroad Passenger Corporation and the BofRS-Southern & Western Districts,
dated 1 February 1387, Rule #30, paragraphs (a) and (b) when it permitted
and/or required another non-related crew employee to work in place of Mr.
Morris, to which he had first entitlements in accordance with contractual
obligations.
(b) Carrier should now be required to compensate Mr. Morris for
twenty-five (25) hours at one and one-half times his normal aforementioned
rate." Carrier file NEC-BRS-SD-374. BRS Case No. 8072-CR.
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.
Claimant _n this dispute is a Signal Trainee in Signal Crew No. 8082.
Claimant is headquartered at 56 Roland Street, in Charlestown, Massachusetts.
His regular assigned hours are Monday through Friday from 7:30 A.M. to 4:00
P.M.
Form 1 Award No. 29376
Page 2 Docket No. SG-29512
92-3-90-3-445
Claimant maintains that on Friday, February 3, 1989, he informed his
superiors that he would be available for overtime service on the Oak Island/
Saugus Drawbridge Project over the weekend. The Claimant further stated that
he was advised his service would not be needed. On the following Monday,
February 6, 1989, however, Claimant discovered that a Signalman from Crew No.
8192, worked with Claimant's Crew No. 8082.
In a letter of March 25, 1989, the General Chairman filed a claim on
behalf of Claimant contending a violation of Rules 30 (a) and (b).
"RULE 30
OVERTIME PREFERENCE - CONTINUOUS
141TH TOUR OF DUTY
(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 the first opportunity
for the overtime.
(b) If additional employees are required for such
overtime, other qualified employees in the gang will
be offered the overtime in seniority order."
It is the organization's position that the Carrier violated the
Agreement, specifically Rule 30 (a) and (b), when it did not use the Claimant
for overtime on Saturday, February 4, and Sunday, February 5, 1989, on the Oak
Island/Saugus Drawbridge Project. For this violation, the Organization feels
the Carrier should now be required to pay Claimant compensation equal to
twenty-five hours pay at his punitive rate of pay.
According to the Organization, there is no argument between the
parties that the overtime was worked; that the Claimant was available; and
that the hours cited were correct. The Organization maintains that the only
argument of the Carrier is that the Claimant was "unqualified for the work."
The Organization stated in the original claim letter that the Claimant was
qualified under the Carrier's "Gang Watchman" Rules and, the NORAC Rules.
For its part, the Carrier asserted the following facts: At the time
the disputed overtime work was performed, the Claimant was assigned to Crew
8082 as a Signal 7rainee with less than six months service. The Division
Engineer stated that while the Signalmen may have performed some incidental
"flagging and bonding" in connection with their work that weekend, it was by
Form 1 Award No. 29376
Page 3 Docket No. SG-29512
92-3-90-3-445
no means a preponderance of the work they performed and a "fully qualified"
Signalman was needed. The Carrier further stated that the Signalman called
replaced circuit controller boxes on the bridge deck on that weekend. The
work involves actually rewiring signals, a position for which the Claimant, a
Signal Trainee, is not qualified according to the Carrier. For this reason
the Carrier assigned the senior Signalman from Crew No. 8192.
This Board has a restrictive appellate role in the resolution of
disputes. Our jurisdiction does not include the finding of facts which are
not clearly presented to the Board by written record evidence set forth in the
handling on the property. The facts essential to this claim are sharply disputed and a review of the
does not contain sufficient probative evidence to support either the Carrier's
or the Organization's position regarding exactly what work was performed by
the Signalman.
When irreconcilable differences occur in material facts, such claims
have traditionally been dismissed by this Board. See Third Division Awards
28435, 27195, 26679, and 25973. We have no sufficient evidentiary basis for
resolving this dispute and, accordingly, we have no choice but to dismiss it
for failure of proof.
A W A R D
Claim dismissed.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
Attest:
Nancy J. - Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 17th day of September 1992.