This Di% ision of the adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
It is undisputed on this record that Claimants were entitled to be called for the overtime work pursuant to Rule 17 of the effective Agreement. The primary issue in controversy is whether Carrier properly attempted to telephone the Claimants before moving on to call junior employees.
The claim asserts that Claimants were not called. Carrier admitted one Claimant, D. Flower, was overlooked. .accordingly, Carrier allowed him seven hours of straight time pay. Carrier asserted that the other two Claimants were called. It maintained the line was busy with one Claimant and the call was not answered by the other.
Given the requirements of Rule 17, Carrier's position is an affirmative defense. As such, Carrier shoulders the burden of proof to establish this defense. Given the opposing assertions regarding whether such calls were made, it was incumbent upon the Carrier to produce evidence to support its assertions.
Although Carrier's Submission contains the statement of the Supervisor who purportedly made the calls, the Organization objected to the exhibit as being new material. Our review of the on-property record supports the Organization's objection. We find no reference to show that the Supervisor's statement was exchanged or discussed during the handling of the matter on the property. Because it is well settled that new material may not be considered by the Board, we have disregarded the Carrier's exhibit. As a result, Carrier's affirmative defense must be rejected for lack of proof. Moreover, it is also noted that the record contains no indications that Carrier attempted to call each Claimant more than once to verify that the correct telephone number had been dialed.
The remaining issue deals with the proper compensation. Flower claims the difference between the straight time and punitive rate. The other Claimants seek the punitive rate. Form I Award No. 31928
Once again, our re% iew of the on-property record fails to reveal that Carrier took exception to the claims for the punitive rate. Moreover, according to the prior Awards between these same parties, the proper remedy is payment at the punitive rate. See Third Division .awards 26431, _'7181, 27335 and 27638.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimant(s) be made. The Carrier is ordered to make the award effective on or before 30 days following the postmark date the .award is transmitted to the parties.