Claimants are Technician Installers who regularly perform such installation work, as a violation of Rule 40(g), which states as follows:

"RULE 40 - OVERTIME

(g) When it becomes necessary to assign an employee to an overtime

assignment, such employee shall be selected based on the following

considerations:

(1) Incumbent of the position for which the overtime is required.

(2) Senior qualified available employee working in the class of

overtime assignment as set out in Rule 12 at the section,

subdivision, or gang. In the event no such employee is available

to cover the overtime assignment, employees in an adjacent

section, subdivision, or gang will be considered on the same

basis."

The Organization argues that the Claimants, as Installer Technicians, are incumbents to the installation work on a construction project, ratherthan Gang No.24,who are Electronic Technicians that normally perform maintenance work. It also asserts that while both gangs involve the same class of Technicians, they involve different sections that normally perform different type of work. Its claim alleges a manipulation of job assignments involving known overtime by the Carrier and does not limit its relief to job assignments referenced therein. The Organization points out that the Carrier's position herein conflicts with its denials in claims involving bumping rights where the Carrier states that each title is considered separate and not qualified to do each other's work.

The Carrier initially contends that the claim is procedurally defective because it fails to specify the dates of the alleged violations or the amounts of overtime being claimed, and notes that the General Chairman stated at the conference that he was unaware of what, if any, overtime was involved. It next argues that the Claimants and the members of Gang 24 are all part of the Technician class, occupying the same roster with the same pay rate, and may perform all duties associated with that position. The Carrier asserted that both were maintenance gangs within the same maintenance group, and although it was normal for Gang 24 to do smaller jobs than Gang 39, either gang was able to do both as supported by past practice. The Carrier contends that there is no contractual restriction on such work assignment.

A careful review of the record convinces the Board that the Organization failed to sustain its burden of proving a violation of Rule 40(g) in this case. Initially we note that the claim before the Board limits relief being sought to three numbered job assignments, the same three cited as examples in the Organization's initial claim. Thus, we find that it meets the specificity requirement because the Carrier is able to determine the identity of the Claimants by noting who worked in Gang 39 on the dates the specific job numbers were performed.

However, the Organization pointed to nothing in the Agreement that does not permit this work assignment. Both gang members fall within the Communications Technician class, whose duties and qualifications are listed within Rule 25. There is nothing therein distinguishing Electronic Technicians from InstallerTechnicians. While there may well be differences between the qualifications of the two types of Technicians, and Gang 39 normally works in groups while Gang 24 members generally work alone, the Organization failed to establish that the members of Gang 24 were not qualified to perform the installations in issue, or that it was the type of work specifically reserved to Installer Technicians as a separate section thereby limiting the Carrier's right to deploy its work force as it bests sees fit. Absent such proof, the Board is unable to find a violation of the overtime provision of the Agreement in these job assignments.

AWARD