Overtime was needed for Saturday, July 23, and Sunday, July 24, 1988. According to a statement provided by Claimant's supervisor H. Conyers, on Friday, July 22, 1988, Conyers called claimant's home twice and each time received no answer. Two hours later, Conyers again called Claimant, also without success. Conyers then proceeded down the seniority list and obtained employees junior to Claimant (DeMatos and Loyd) to perform the overtime work. Late in the afternoon of July 22, Conyers did speak with Claimant. Conyers states that he told Claimant that he had a slot open for Saturday evening and asked if Claimant wanted the job. Conyers explained to Claimant that all other jobs were already set up and Conyers would not be able to contact the employees given those jobs to cancel those assignments and substitute Claimant. As a result, Claimant worked less overtime on the dates set forth in the claim than did the junior employees.

Rule 55(a) states:

"Employes will, if qualified and available, be given preference for overtime work, including calls, on work ordinarily and customarily performed by them, in order of their seniority."

The probative evidence in the record shows that Claimant was given preference for the work on the basis of his seniority. Conyers repeatedly called Claimant over a substantial period of time to offer him the overtime work but received no answer. Conyers then proceeded down the seniority list. Given the repeated unsuccessful attempts by the Carrier to contact Claimant for the overtime work, nothing in the Rule or in this record required the Carrier to restructure the overtime assignments after they were made because Claimant later made contact with the carrier and requested the overtime assignment. Under the circumstances, the Carrier's actions were reasonable. See Third Division Award 27627 between the parties.

AWARD