This case involves a claim by the Organization that the Carrier violated the Agreement by denying the Claimant opportunities to work planned overtime on his regular assigned section. The Organization asserts that according to the Agreement, the senior Maintainer is entitled to planned overtime on his regular assigned section. The pertinent contract language, according to the Organization, is found in Rule 5-AI (h) and in App
The Organization asserts that Appendix "P," which provides a procedure for calling C&S Department employees for trouble involving Maintainer's work outside their regular working hours, establishes a call list from which the senior regular employee on the territory will be called for overtime work. Further, according to the Organization, Rule 5-A-1(h) requires that overtime be assigned to the senior regular employee after it has been determined that there is no available unassigned employee who does not have 40 hours of work that week.
The disputed work involved repairs and testing of signal apparatus associated with the operation of a ballast cleaner working within the Claimant Maintainer's territory. According to the Organization, the Claimant was the senior Maintainer on his section. It maintains, therefore, that he should have been afforded the first opportunity to perform the work. The Organization asserts that the proper remedy is to make the Claimant whole for all lost work opportunities.
The Carrier, on the other hand, asserts that Rule 5-A-1(h) and Appendix "P" are not applicable. It asserts that Rule 5-A-1(h) does not pertain to overtime assignments, but rather applies strictly to work that is not part of any assignment. It maintains that Appendix "P" does not apply because it creates a list for trouble calls, and does not pertain to scheduled overtime.
According to the Carrier, the governing language is found in Rule 5-A-2(a), which states:
The Carrier asserts that Rule 5-A-2(a) provides that an employee who performs work on straight time is entitled to perform that work on overtime. It further asserts that it has always been the practice that an employee who performs work such as protecting the ballast cleaner on straight time is entitled to the overtime for that same work. Thus, the Carrier maintains that because the junior employees were properly assigned to work with the ballast cleaner during normal work hours, they were entitled to the overtime associated with that work.
After reviewing the record evidence, we have determined that the Organization's claim must be denied. We agree with the Carrier that Rule 5-A-1(h) does not govern this dispute. So, too, Appendix "P" is inapplicable. It refers to emergency trouble calls, and does not address scheduled overtime that is at issue here.
However, we do not agree with the Carrier that Rule 5-A-2(a) is controlling. That provision simply provides that employees performing work during a tour of duty shall be given the first opportunity to perform that work on overtime, provided it is known prior to the end of the tour of duty that the overtime is being scheduled. This dispute involves overtime that precedes a tour of duty, and Rule 5-A-2(a) does not apply.
In fact, this record does not identify any specific contractual language that limits the Carrier's authority to assign the overtime in the manner it did. In our view, it simply was not an abuse of the Carrier's discretion to have assigned the overtime work at issue to the employees who performed that same work during normal hours.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an Award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.