"Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

(1) The Agreement was violated when the Carrier assigned junior Repairman R. Smith to perform overtime service repairing Philadelphia Subdivision equipment instead of assigning senior Repairman W. Hayes to perform said work on November 4 and 6, 1991 (System File NEC-BMWE-SD-3064 AMT).

(2) The Agreement was violated when the Carrier assigned junior Repairman R. Smith to perform overtime service, performing repairs to equipment used by the C&S Department to set signals at Shore and Ford on November 9, 10, 11, 15 and 16, 1991 instead of assigning senior Repairman A. Cunha to perform said work (System Docket NEC-BMWE-SD 3061).

(3) The Agreement was violated when the Carrier assigned junior Repairman R. Smith to perform overtime service (providing mechanical coverage for MW equipment which C&S was setting signals) at `I' and `B' Streets, on December 6, 1991, instead of assigning senior Repairman E. Cannon to perform said work (System File NEC-BMWE-SD-3095).

(4) The Agreement was violated when the Carrier assigned junior Repairman R. Smith to perform overtime service (providing coverage for equipment) on the third shift on December 19, 23, 26,

(5) The Agreement was violated when the Carrier assigned junior Repairman R. Smith to perform overtime service (providing mechanical coverage for Philadelphia track equipment) on May 29, 1992 instead of assigning senior Repairman W. Hayes to perform said work (System File NEC-BMWE-SD-3162).

(6) As a consequence of the violation referred to in Part (1) above, Repairman W. Hayes shall be allowed thirteen (13) hours' pay at the repairman's time and one-half rate.

(7) As a consequence of the violation referred to in Part (2) above, Repairman A. Cunha shall be allowed fifty-one (51) hours' pay at the repairman's time and one-half rate.

(8) As a consequence of the violation referred to in Part (3) above, Repairman E. Cannon shall be allowed eight (8) hours' pay at the repairman's time and one-half rate.

(9) As a consequence of the violation referred to in Part (4) above, Repairman W. Hayes shall be allowed twenty-eight (28) hours' pay at the repairman's time and one-half rate.

(10) As a consequence of the violation referred to in Part (5) above, Repairman W. Hayes shall be allowed thirteen (13) hours' pay at the repairman's time and one-half rate."

This Division of the Adjustment Board bas jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.

This dispute originated on the property as five separate claims, but they have been combined here because four of them are virtually identical, involving overtime on rest days, and one is similar although possibly distinguishable, involving overtime bevond the normal work hours.

The common thread is that overtime was assigned on various occasions to a Repairman junior to the Claimants, which the Organization argues is in violation of Rule 55(a), which reads as follows:

"Employes wiB, 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 dispute does not concern the Claimants' qualification, availability, or status senior to the employee assigned the work. The issue is limited to the designation of one Repairman, by posted bulletin, to "work in the field", as contrasted with the general Repairman work performed in shops. The Organization objected to reference to this in the Carrier's Submission by stating that the "carrier made no such assertion and argument during the handling of this dispute on the property."

The Board finds, however, that the "field" position WM discussed on the property. As one example, the appeal reply of the Director, Labor Relations in Case NEC-BMWESD-3162, stated in

"The claimant normally and customarily performs heavy overhaul and major repairs of large NM equipment. On the other hand, [the employee assigned the overtime[, while not expected to make major repairs, is expected to solve problems with field equipment as simple as a rail saw . . . . The scope of the repairs he is expected to make is broader than that regularly encountered by a shop repairman ....

Contrary to the union's attribution, the use of terms `field repairman' and `shop repairman' should not [be[ equated with the creation of new work classifications. Both positions are Repairman M. W. Equipment positions. These terms are simply a convenient way of distinguishing specific duties within the broad range defined by the general Work Classification rule. Rule 55 clearly recognizes that different individuals within a class will ordinarily and customarily perform different work. Otherwise the authors of the rule could simply have provide[dl preference overtime work for `work of the classification'. Rule 55 allows, indeed requires, [the Carrier[ to make distinction between individuals within a class where such distinctions are appropriate."

"This phrase was reviewed in Third Division Award 29720, involving the same parties. That Award stated:

`The phrase, "work ordinarily and customarily performed" is not precise. It can refer to the fypg of work, which would clearly encompass the Claimants herein. Alternately, it can be interpreted to refer to the continuation or completion of such work.'

Here the `type' of work is that of Foreman, which of course the Claimant and the junior employee share. However, the Board is persuaded that in this instance the phrase ordinarily and customarily performed' refers to installation and construction work (as contrasted with maintenance work). . . "

AWARD