Claimant held a position as a Maintainer, headquartered at Lurgan, Pennsylvania, on the Carrier's Harrisburg Division. His normal tour of duty was 7:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M., with Saturday and Sunday rest days. on Friday, April 5, 1991, at approximately 4:15 P.M., Carrier contacted Electronic Technician C. H. Carter, also headquartered at Lurgan, to repair a malfunctioning high/wide load detector. Carter corrected the problem through the use of a series of tests using a diagnostic simulator device.
On May 14, 1991, the Local Chairman submitted this overtime claim on behalf of Claimant alleging that Carrier had violated Appendix "P" of the Agreement when it called an Electronic Technician rather than the Maintainer to repair the high/wide detector. The organization requested four hours pay at the overtime rate. Claim was progressed in the normal manner on the property, until it was ultimately denied by the Senior DirectorLabor Relations. Form 1 Award No. 30742
The Organization maintains that Claimant, as the Maintainer assigned to the section and listed first on the calling list, should have been called ahead of any other employee as provided for by Appendix "P" of the Agreement. The Organization further maintained that the reference in the Electronic Technician Classification Rule, to "components" of high car scanners, merely indicates that Electronic Technicians perform certain work on these components, and does not preclude other employees from performing the same work or any other work associated with the system. Finally, the organization submitted that absent Carrier's violation of the Agreement, Claimant would have received overtime payment had he been properly assigned to the trouble call.
For its part, Carrier asserts that Claimant was not qualified to perform the work, as the tests which were performed by the Electronic Technician are recommended by the manufacturer of the high car scanner and require the use of a diagnostic simulator device used only used by Electronic Technicians. In addition, the classification portion of the Agreement indicates that Electronic Technicians perform the maintenance, testing adjustment, repair and replacement of electronic and electromagnetic components associated with high-and-wide load detectors. Finally, Carrier asserted that no monetary award would be due to the Claimant who was not qualified for the work and could not have been used.
Review of the evidence presented, compels a decision to deny this claim. The organization failed to prove that Carrier was required to call Claimant, or for that matter, any other Maintainer, for overtime work on equipment which is clearly under the purview of the Electronic Technician classification in the Agreement. The language of the Maintainers classification covering "signal testing and repair work covered by the Agreement," does not expressly or exclusively reserve trouble shooting the high/wide detector, nor is there any demonstrated practice under which Maintainers are the only classification to perform such duties. Further, an Electronic Technician is charged, specifically, with "testing and repairs associated with high and wide detectors." In that regard, Carrier's assertion that the manufacturer of the equipment at issue "recommends the use of a diagnostic simulator" which can "only be used by Electronic Technicians," was not rebutted by the Organization. We are not persuaded on this record that Carrier violated Claimant's rights when it contacted an Electronic Technician to perform the specialized repairs at issue. Based on the foregoing, this claim is denied. Form 1 Award No. 30742
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.