This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
On a number of occasions subsequent to November 16, 1991, Carrier utilized Sign Writer C. Polinaire in the performance of B&B carpentry work on an overtime basis. Carpentry work was not work that Polinaire would "ordinarily and customarily" perform, thus he was not entitled to preferential assignment to that work under Rule 55(a) of the Agreement. Claims were filed on behalf of Austin and Higueruela contending that they were entitled to be called for this carpentry work in preference to Polinaire, under the language of Rule 55(a), reading:
Austin's and Higueruela's claims were "allowed" at Carrier's Director of Labor Relations level, with authorized payments of 224 hours ($2,307.20) to Austin and eight hours ($77.60) to Higueruela.
The dispute before this Board concerns an allegation that these payments are inadequate. Carrier contends that the amounts paid represent the hours that Austin and Higueruela were available to work overtime to be assigned to the carpentry work that was performed by Polinaire on overtime. Carrier says that Claimant's were not paid for some of the overtime hours worked by Polinaire when a combination of Polinaire's overtime hours and Claimant's regularly scheduled work hours would have exceeded the equivalent of 16 hours work in a 24 hours period.
Carrier contends that its Engineering Department has a long standing proscription against assignments that would require an employee to work more than 16 hours in a 24 hour period. Carrier says that this proscription is in accord with a directive published on November 3, 1986 stating that no employee "should be required to work in excess of 16 hours in a 24 hour period." It argues that the General Chairman was furnished a copy of this notice at the time it was published, thus acknowledging that assignments will not Form 1 Award No. 32371
be made if the assignment would have an employee on duty more than 16 hours in a 24 hour period.
The Board does not find persuasive Carrier's reasons for excluding payments when the combination of overtime hours worked by Polinaire and the scheduled hours of Claimants would have exceeded 16 hours pay in a 24 hour period. It is acknowledged that Polinaire was improperly utilized on overtime work that Austin and Higueruela were entitled to perform. They filed a claim seeking payment for the hours Polinaire worked. They are entitled to be paid for these hours as a remedy even if, as Carrier said, such payment would be the equivalent of being on duty in some instances of between 19 and 23 hours in a 24 hour period. The Agreement was violated when Polinaire was used instead of Claimants. As reparations for the violation they are entitled to be paid the equivalent of the total number of hours that Polinaire worked in violation of the Agreement.
The claims have merit. They will be sustained for the total hours worked by Polinaire during the period of time covered by the claim. Carrier may take credit for amounts previously paid.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that as 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.