This case involves a claim by the Organization that the Carrier violated the Agreement by utilizing junior employees to perform overtime work on August 28, 29 and 30, 1992. The Organization asserts that the Carrier failed to make the necessary effort to contact the Claimants.
The Carrier, on the other hand, asserts that it did not violate the Agreement. It asserts that Claimants Thomas and Brosius were on vacation and did not specifically notify the Carrier that they wished to be on call for overtime. The Carrier further claims that it attempted to reach the Claimants by calling the location where they were headquartered, but was unable to contact them immediately. The Carrier maintains that time was of the essence because it needed to confirm immediately with AT&T that it would be able to supply a crew to work with it.
After carefully reviewing the record evidence, we have determined that the Organization's claim must be sustained in part and denied in part.
Claimants Thomas and Brosius were on vacation during the workweek prior to the claim dates. There is no record evidence that either of them advised the Carrier in advance that they wanted to be called for overtime during their vacations. They were required to do so if they wanted to be called. We believe this obligation fairly extends to the rest days immediately following and continuous with their vacation periods.
However, the claims of the Claimants Dyke and Stevens are sustained. The Carrier has not provided any concrete evidence supporting its assertion that a reasonable effort was made to contact those Claimants in order to offer them the overtime.
Accordingly, Claimants Dyke and Stevens each shall be paid 41 hours at the straight time rate.
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.