The instant dispute arose on November 17, 1995, when a Roadmaster spent four hours inspecting track and making necessary track repairs. The Organization maintains that the Roadmaster performed Scope covered work, in violation of the Agreement. Carrier responds that the Organization failed to prove that the work involved was reserved exclusively to Agreement-covered employees and that, in any event, the claim for eight hours pay at the time and one-half rate is excessive.
Carrier's exclusivity argument is misplaced. The Board has held on several occasions that the Organization need not establish that Agreement-covered employees exclusively performed the work in question when the claim involves work performed by Supervisors. See, e.g., Third Division Awards 25991 and 28349. As the Board observed in Award 28349:
"The Carrier also bases its defense on the alleged non-exclusivity of supervisory work, not resting solely with B&B Foremen. This argument is not persuasive here .... [T]his is not an appropriate instance for the exclusivity test. This is not a dispute as to which craft, subdivision of craft, or classification is appropriate; rather, it is a Claim concerning the performance of Agreement work by a non-represented supervisory employee."
We see no reason to deviate from past decisions of the Board. Accordingly, we reject Carrier's defense based on the allegation that the Organization cannot establish its exclusive right to perform the work at issue.
However, we agree with Carrier that the claim for eight hours at the time and one-half rate is excessive. The record established that the Roadmaster spent four hours performing the work at issue. There is no justification for awarding four hours pay to two different employees. Furthermore, the record established that the work was performed during the Claimants' normal working time. Accordingly, we will award a total of four hours' pay (not four hours to each Claimant) at the straight time rate.