Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Award No. 32167
Docket No. CL-32648
97-3-95-3-580

The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Elizabeth C. Wesman when award was rendered.

(Transportation Communications International Union PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (CSX Transportation, Inc. (former Seaboard Coast ( Line Railroad Company)

STATEMENT OF CLAIM:










FINDINGS:

The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

The carrier or carriers and the employee or employees involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934.

This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
Form 1 Award No. 32167
Page 2 Docket No. CL-32648




This dispute arose on June 10, 1994, at Carrier's Hamlet, North Carolina, Terminal. At that time, Claimant was rested and entitled under the Agreement to be called for a vacancy on Position 4F56-213, working 3:30 P.M. to 11:30 P.M. By agreement, calling time for vacancies begins two hours in advance of the starting time of the assignment. At 2:32 P.M., Carrier called Claimant and received a busy signal. Carrier immediately re-dialed at 2:33 P.M. and again received a busy signal. The Caller then marked Claimant out of place and, at 2:34 P.M., assigned a junior employee to the vacancy.


On June 10, 1994, Claimant filed a claim for the eight hours at time and one-half he would have received had he been assigned to the position, on the basis that he had not been properly called. That claim was denied on June 20, 1994. By letter of July 19, 1994, the Organization appealed the denial citing the following reasons:














Form 1 Award No. 32167
Page 3 Docket No. CL-32648
97-3-95-3-580
5. Claimant was at home. His telephone was available for any
reasonable person to contact him, and Claimant would have worked
the position if he had been called."

That appeal was denied and the claim was subsequently progressed in the usual manner up to and including the highest Carrier officer empowered to handle such matters. Following conference on the property on January 18, 1995, the issue remained in dispute.


It is the position of the Organization that Carrier failed to make a satisfactory effort to contact Claimant for the disputed vacancy, which Carrier was obligated to offer Claimant under Rule 18(4) of the Agreement. That Rule reads in pertinent part as follows:






Form 1 Award No. 32167
Page 4 Docket No. CL-32648


The Organization maintains that, because a busy signal was received on the first attempt, the Carrier did not make a bona fide attempt to contact Claimant, because no reasonable person would make an important call, find the line busy, and then give up after re-dialing just seconds later. Such calls, placed so close together can only be viewed as a single call. In support of its position, the Organization cites Third Division Award 27701, in which the Board held:



The Organization further notes that the only Carrier calling Rule which deals with a similar situation concerns calling a person with a beeper. That portion of the "Calling Procedures" reads as follows:











Form 1 Award No. 32167
Page 5 Docket No. CL-32648
97-3-95-3-580
- Make a second attempt to call the first number indicated on the
call sheet. If no answer, indicate the second time called then go to
the neat employee listed on the call sheet.
DO NOT CALL THE BEEPER A SECOND TIME"

The Organization points out that the instructions specify that the Centralized Caller wait at least five minutes before attempting to call the first number. Only if s/he has waited that interval and again received no answer should the Caller proceed to the neat employee on the call sheet.


Finally, the Organization maintains that, because the missed call would have provided Claimant with eight hours of work at the overtime rate, the claim for compensation at that rate is proper.


The Carrier maintains that its attempt to call Claimant was a good faith effort. Further, it insists that the guidelines cited by the Organization regarding Centralized Callers are just that, and do not rise to the importance or enforceability of contract language negotiated with the Organization. Thus, they can be altered or eliminated without notice. Because those guidelines are silent as to the handling of busy signals, the Carrier was under no obligation to do more than what was done in this case.


The Board concurs with the findings of Third Division Award 27701, cited above. While we do not find that Carrier is necessarily bound by the same "guidelines" it has applied to beepers, we do find that making two calls to a number within 60 seconds or less, when the first call resulted in a busy signal, is not reasonable. It cannot be viewed as a "good faith" effort to contact Claimant for work to which he was entitled. Furthermore, because Claimant would have been paid for eight hours at the overtime rate, the claim is sustained as presented.




    Claim sustained.

Form I Award No. 32167
Page 6 Docket No. CL-32648
97-3-95-3-580

                        ORDER


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.


                        NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD By Order of Third Division


                        Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 13th day of August 1997.