"Claim of the System Committee of the Organization (GL-11185) that:

1. Carrier violated the Agreement on July 30, 1994, when it failed to

call Claimant Nate Vain:, ID 628144, to protect the vacancy on

Position No. 200, but instead allowed the third-shift employe to

double.

2. Carrier shall compensate Claimant eight (8) hours at the applicable

overtime rate for the above violation."

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

The incident precipitating the instant claim occurred on July 30, 1994, at Carrier's Customer Service Center (CSC), in Jacksonville, Florida. At the CSC facility, the calling of clerical employees is performed by a designated calling position on each shift. There are four employees assigned to those positions, including the relief position. On the date in question, there were two vacancies in these positions and three employees qualified to fill them including Claimant.

Prior to the first shift, Carrier called Claimant and asked him if he was interested in working the overtime. He declined the overtime. It is unrefuted on the record that Claimant had also declined to work overtime on the same two shifts the day before. Carrier did not call Claimant for the second shift vacancy, which was then worked by one of the other qualified employees. On August 1, 1994, Claimant filed a claim in which he alleged that Carrier improperly failed to call him to work Position 200 - the second shift. The claim was declined and subsequently progressed up to and including the highest Carrier officer authorized to handle such matters.

It is the position of the Organization that Claimant was qualified, rested and available to protect this assignment but, in violation of Rule 18 of the Agreement, was not called. The Carrier asserted that Claimant told the Caller to "see what [one of the other qualified employees[ wants to do." Thus, according to the Carrier, it was reasonable for the Caller to assume Claimant was turning down both shifts, as he had the day before.

In sum, Carrier maintains it believed Claimant clearly implied he was rejecting the shifts, while Claimant denies he made the statement attributed to him by Carrier's Caller. As has been noted in many Awards, the appellate nature of this process precludes any attempt by the Board to resolve such "head on" credibility conflicts. (See Third Division Awards 25962, 28790, 28794; Second Division Award 10946.) Because the Organization failed to carry the burden of persuasion, the instant claim is dismissed.

AWARD