Claimant held the position of Trackman on the date of claim. At the time the claim arose, the gang to which he was regularly assigned was working a tie spiking project. Claimant was assigned to feed spikes into the gager spiking machine, the first or lead machine of several spiking machines, which are utilized in tandem by the tie gang. The gager machine ensures that track is laid down properly with the correct spacing between the rails, tacking them in place on intermittent cross ties. A second spiker machine follows and drives in the rest of the spikes to the remaining ties to hold the rails in place permanently. A final spiking machine, the "quality control" spiker, replaces any bent or improperly installed spikes driven by the lead machine. Just as Claimant was usually assigned to the feed spikes to the lead or gager spiker, during the regular work week; Machine Operator G. F. Griebel was usually assigned to operate the final or quality control spiking machine, during the regular work week.
On November 27, 1991, his rest day, Class 2 machine Operator G. F. Griebel was called to work to operate a rear spiker machine for a tie gang. On November 5, 1991, Carrier received correspondence from the Organization on behalf of G. D. Faulkner (Claimant), who is senior to Mr. Griebel, alleging a violation of Agreement Rules 1, 4, 11, 16 and 17. The Organization asserted that since Claimant was senior to Mr. Griebel, he should have been called for the rest day overtime work on November 27, 1991.
Carrier denied the claim maintaining that, since the work was "ordinarily and customarily" performed by Mr. Griebel during his work week, he was entitled to the overtime. In an appeal letter to the Manager-Labor Relations, the Organization reasserted that Claimant was entitled to the overtime, however, the claim was confined to Rules 16 and 17 only.
feeding spikes into a gager spiking machine. For his part, Mr. Griebel operated the "final" spiking machine, with responsibility for replacing any bent or improperly installed spikes which had been driven by the lead and intermediate machines. Under the plain and unambiguous language of Rule 17, supra, Carrier did not violate Claimant's seniority rights when they gave preference for the November 27, 1991 overtime on the final or quality control spiker to the junior employee who "ordinarily and customarily performed the work" of operating that particular machine during the course of his workweek or day.
Based on the foregoing, we find that that Claimant was not improperly bypassed for the overtime work which Mr. Griebel was called to perform on November 27, 1991. Therefore, this claim must be denied.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.