Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Award No. 35410
Docket No. SG-35422
01-3-99-3-312
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee
James E. Mason when award was rendered.
(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company
( former Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
"Claim on behalf of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad
Signalmen on the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway (ATSF):
Claim on behalf of J.L. Carroll, for 54 hours at his time and one-half rate
plus skill differential pay, account Carrier violated the current
Signalmen's Agreement, particularly Rules 12(a) and 12(b), when it failed
to utilize the Claimant for overtime work on his assigned territory from
September 29 through November 24, 1997. Carrier's File No. SIB 98-0305-AA. General Chairman's File N
FINDINGS:
The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the
evidence, finds that:
The carrier or carriers and the employee or employees involved in this dispute
are respectively carrier and employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as
approved June 21, 1934.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved
herein.
Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.
Form 1 Award No.
35410
Page
2
Docket No.
SG-35422
01-3-99-3-312
The Claimant in this case was assigned to a Signal Maintainer position
headquartered at Davis, Oklahoma. During the time period covered by the Statement
of Claim, supra, the Carrier utilized an outside contractor to install fiber optic cable
along their right-of-way. While this installation was taking place, the Carrier assigned
two signal gang employees to accompany the contractor to insure that there was no
damage done to the signal equipment.
Between the dates as outlined in this claim, the signal gang employees accrued
54
hours of overtime in conjunction with their oversight assignments. This overtime is the
basis of the Organization's claim. They argue that Rule
12
- CALLS, specifically Rule
12(b), was somehow violated when the Claimant did not participate in the overtime work
performed by the signal gang employees while they were assigned to follow the fiber
optic installation process within the territory of the Claimant Signal Maintainer.
Rule 12 - CALLS reads, in pertinent part, as follows:
"RULE 12 CALLS
(a) Employes assigned to, or filing vacancies on a territory shall notify
the person designated by the Management where they may be called
and shall respond promptly when called. When such employes
desire to leave their home station or to be unavailable for call for a
period of time in excess of three hours, they shall as much in
advance as possible, notify the person designated by the
Management that they will be away or unavailable. They will also
advise about when they will again be available for service.
(b) When necessary work is to be performed outside of assigned hours
on an assigned territory, employe(s) will be called in the following
order, if they are available and can be located promptly:
(1) The assigned maintainer.
(2)
Any adjoining maintainer(s) on the same seniority
district.
Form 1 Award No. 35410
Page 3 Docket No. SG-35422
01-3-99-3-312
(3a) Any hourly rated employe(s) on the same seniority
district who has given the Signal Supervisor written
notice, including his home address and phone number,
of his desire to work overtime.
(3b) If the trouble occurs on a territory which adjoins a
territory in a different seniority district, the
maintainer assigned to said adjoining territory may be
called if he is closer to the trouble than any employe
referred to in (3a) hereof.
(4) The closest maintainer on the seniority district or, if
Carrier desires, a Signal Inspector or Signal Foreman
who is closer to the trouble than the maintainer
referred to in the Step 4.
(c) When employes assigned to a signal gang are required to work
overtime, the immediately available and qualified senior man or
men in the signal gang shall be given preference to such overtime
work. Signal gang employes will not be considered `immediately
available' unless they are working at or in the immediate vicinity of
the point of overtime work, or if for call service, they can be located
promptly."
It is the Carrier's position that the overtime work here involved was not of a type
covered by Rule 12(b). Rather, the Carrier argued that Rule 12(c) covered the situation
here involved and that the Claimant had no demand right to perform such overtime
service. The Carrier insists that the overtime work was directly connected to the work
performed by the signal gang employees during their regular work hours and as such
the overtime performed was a continuation of the regular work hours and was not
covered by the provision of the "CALL" Rule cited.
After reviewing the case record of this case, the Board is convinced that there has
been no violation of Rule 12. The overtime work in question properly accrued to the
signal gang employees who were on site performing the same work during their regular
tour of duty. On the basis of the fact situation which exists in this case and on the basis
of the Rule language here involved, the Board cannot find that the Claimant has been
Form 1 Award No.
35410
Page
4
Docket No.
SG-35422
01-3-99-3-312
deprived of any work opportunity which properly accrued to him. Therefore, the claim
as presented is denied.
AWARD
Claim denied.
ORDER
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that
an Award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 26th day of April, 2001.