This claim protests the assignment of a Cabinet Maker to perform B&B Mechanic overtime work of building platforms at Darby Station rather than the Claimant, a B&B Mechanic Foreman. It involves the application and interpretation of Rule 55, Preference for Overtime Work, which provides, in pertinent part:
The Organization contends that it was impermissible for the Carrier to call an employee off another roster before the entire craft working on the active roster has been called. In this case the Organization alleges that under Rule 55 the Carrier should have called B&B Mechanic Foremen, Assistant Foremen and Inspectors prior to calling Cabinet Makers, Welders, Plumbers etc. who are neither in the craft nor under the same Agreement. It asserts that the proper compensation for this missed overtime opportunity should be at the time and one-half rate of pay.
The Carrier argues that it properly applied the seniority provisions of Rule 55 by utilizing its normal procedure of first exhausting the roster of employees currently working in the class of work required for overtime, herein B&B Mechanics, and then calling employees according to their rank on the B&B Mechanic's roster, even if they are working out of class. In this case, the Carrier asserts that it exhausted the roster of active B&B Mechanics before calling employees in order of seniority on that roster, and it is undisputed that Cabinet Maker Madeksiak's roster number is 299 while the Claimant's is 352. It noted on the property that a Foreman was not needed on the claim date because a senior Foreman was already working on the job. The Carrier furnished proof that the work involved only six and one-half hours of overtime, and contends that the Organization failed to meet its burden of proving a violation of the Agreement. It also argues that the claim is excessive because the appropriate compensation for a lost overtime opportunity on this property is the pro rata rate.
A careful review of the record convinces the Board that the Carrier's position has merit. There is no dispute that B&B Foremen are on a different roster than B&B Mechanics, and that the class of work here involved was B&B Mechanics work. Rule 55 requires the Carrier to give preference for overtime work in order of seniority to employees who ordinarily and customarily perform the work in issue. Its focus is on the class of work involved. The Carrier properly complied with its obligations by first Form 1 Award No. 35644
exhausting the B&B Mechanic's roster for all employees actively working in that classification, and thereafter, giving preference to those B&B Mechanics working outside the class in order of seniority on the B&B Mechanic's roster. There is no requirement that rosters of active employees in the B&B Department unrelated to the type of work to be performed, e.g., the Foremen's roster, be exhausted prior to using the Mechanic's roster of inactive employees, as the Organization contends. The Carrier complied with its obligations under Rule 55 by assigning the overtime work in order of B&B Mechanic seniority as it appears on that roster. Because the Claimant admittedly had less Mechanic seniority than Madeksiak, no violation has been established.
This Board, after consideration ofthe dispute identified above, hereby ordersthat an Award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.
LABOR MEMBER'S DISSENT
TO
AWARD 35644. DOCKET MW-34459
(Referee Newman)
The findings in this Award were based on unsupported assertions and, therefore, a dissent is required. This case involved the Carrier's decision to assign a cabinet maker to perform B&B mechanic's work rather than assigning the Claimant who held a position as a B&B foreman. The Claimant's assignment of B&B foreman is on the same roster where the work was performed. Although the cabinet maker who was assigned to perform the mechanic's work held greater seniority as a mechanic than that of the Claimant, cabinet maker is on another roster than B&B foreman and mechanic.
The Carrier did not deny that it made no effort to determine the availability of the Claimant to perform overtime service on the instant claim date. Instead, it attempted to defend its actions by asserting that the cabinet maker assigned had the standing of No. 299 on the B&B mechanic's roster and the Claimant's was No. 352. The problem with the Majority's findings is that the cabinet maker's higher standing on the B&B mechanic's roster is immaterial because the Carrier was required to first exhaust the roster before calling cabinet makers, welders, plumbers, bridge operators, etc., in accordance with the practice accepted since Amtrak was first formed. The record reveals that the Carrier failed to provide any evidence of probative value of a practice to the contrary. Labor Member's Dissent