This claim filed on February 28, 1998 protests the Carrier's inclusion of two Assistant Signalmen in Signal Gang 5 that was assigned overtime on the date in issue, rather than the Claimants, a Signal Maintainer and Signal Helper with greater seniority than the two Assistant Signalmen. The overtime assignment involved was to perform Signal Test 43 at designated locations near the Babylon yard. The Carrier determined that one Foreman was necessary to plan, lead and direct, four Signal Inspectors were needed to test the equipment, and two Assistant Signalmen were needed to be gang watchmen under Road Worker Protection (RWP) and to assist the Inspectors. There is no dispute that the Claimants were qualified to do RWP work. 1n issue is whether such assignment violated Rule 40(g)(2) which requires that overtime be assigned to the senior qualified available employee working in the class of the overtime assignment.
The Organization argues that because the Claimants were qualified to perform the type of work for which Assistant Signalmen were used, and had far greater seniority, they were entitled to the overtime assignment under the terms of Rule 40(g)(2). It asserts that the Carrier has no right to make up the composition of a gang to violate Rule 40. The Organization points to the following precedent to support its position that seniority is a paramount right that must be applied in assigning overtime unless the contract specifically provides otherwise: Third Division Awards 30833,14161, 5346. It requests a monetary remedy for lost work opportunity.
The Carrier contends that it has the management right to determine the composition of the gang necessary to perform the type of work involved in the overtime, and that once it has done so, it followed the provisions of Rule 40(g)(2) in assigning the overtime to the senior qualified employees in the class. It notes that the Claimants were not in the Assistant Signalman class. The Carrier agrees that all signal employees have the necessary qualifications to be gang watchmen, but asserts that because it is not exclusively Inspector work under the RWP, there was no violation to have Assistant Signalmen perform it in this case. It asserts that, because all employees assigned to the gang were the senior qualified employees available working in the class, there was no violation of Rule 40(g)(2).
A careful review of the record convinces the Board that the language of Rule 40(g)(2) does not require the Carrier to assign overtime to senior qualified employees regardless of the class determined to be necessary to perform the task. While it may be true that any class of Signalman could have performed the RWP task assigned to the Assistant Signalmen in this case, the Organization failed to prove that the Carrier was Form 1 Award No. 35597
required to compose the gang in such a way as to provide the overtime opportunity based solely on seniority and regardless of class. The Claimants are in two different classes, Class 3 Maintainer and Class 5 Helper. There is no evidence that the contract requires the Carrier to ignore designating appropriate classes for the work involved in favor of seniority without regard to class. The language of Rule 40(g)(2) states otherwise. Because the Organization failed to establish that the work involved belonged solely to either Class 3 or 5, rather than Class 4 Assistant Signalmen, it cannot prove that the Carrier's composition of the gang was designed to violated the Claimants' seniority rights to overtime. Therefore, the claim must fail.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an Award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.