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 employe 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 is employed by Carrier as an Industrial Elevated Transport Operator (IETO). Essentially, Claimant works as a truck driver operating a specialized elevated transport vehicle which is "part of the production line of the steel mill" at the Gary Works of United States Steel Corporation.
On June 1 ,1990, Claimant was the senior IETO working on the first shift. On that date, the Trainmaster determined that at least one IETO would be needed to work overtime at the end of the first shift. There is no dispute concerning the following facts: Form 1 Award No. 29798
1) Claimant stood first out for the overtime opportunity as the senior qualified available IETOt 2) Radio communication is the standard, accepted and established method of calling IETOs for available overtime: 3) the Trainmaster attempted without success to contact Claimant by radio in his truck; 4) Several other IETOs who overheard that radio call also tried unsuccessfully to reach Claimant by radio to inform him of the overtime opportunity; 5) For whatever reason, Claimant did not respond to the overtime call: and, 6) After waiting a brief interval the Trainmaster called the next available IETO who worked the overtime.
In handling on the property, the Organization maintained that Carrier violated Claimant's seniority rights by failing to make additional efforts to call him for the overtime, including repeating the radio call and/or sending a Trainmaster to find Claimant and personally "inquire... as to his desires". For its part, carrier maintains that it made a reasonable effort to offer Claimant the overtime opportunity using the accepted and established means of radio contact, thus fulfilling its obligations and respecting Claimant's rights under the Agreement. Carrier contends it is under no obligation to make extraordinary efforts to contact Claimant and his failure to respond in a timely manner freed Carrier to call the next employee in order to maintain steel mill production needs. A careful review of the requite evidence persuades this Board that the organization has failed to prove a violation of Claimant's rights. Therefore, this claim must be denied.