Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Award No. 35943
Docket No. CL-36412
02-3-00-3-635
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee
Rodney E. Dennis when award was rendered.
(Transportation Communications International Union
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
"Claim of the System Committee of the Organization (GL-12654) that:
(a) The Carrier violated the BRAC - NRPC Agreement of July 27,
1976, in particular, Rules 4-A-1. 5-C-1 and Appendix E, Extra List
Agreement when it allowed, permitted and required a junior
employee to work an overtime assignment and failed to call and use
the Claimant who was senior, qualified and available to work.
(b) On August 13, 1997, the Carrier allowed, permitted and required
Lamont Turner, Roster No. #952, Position No. 952 to work and
overtime position as a Crew Dispatcher in the Crew Management
Department, 30th Street Station, Philadelphia, PA from 3 pm to 11
pm.
(c) The Carrier failed to call and use I. Rosario, Roster No. 880,
Position No. 3CD-65, who was senior, qualified and available to
work.
(d) Claim is filed in behalf of I. Rosario for 8 hours pay at the overtime
rate for August 13, 1997 as a penalty when the Carrier violated the
above-mentioned agreement.
(e) Claim is filed in accordance with Rule 7-B-1, is in order and should
be allowed."
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.
Form 1 Award No. 35943
Page 2 Docket No. CL-36412
02-3-00-3-635
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved
herein.
Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.
At the time of the incident that gave rise to this dispute Claimant 1. Rosario was
assigned to a regular Crew Dispatcher position at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. On
August 13, 1997, the Carrier had need to fill a vacant position for which the Claimant
was eligible to be called.
The Crew Caller responsible for filling the vacancy called people in seniority
order to fill the job. The record indicates that the Claimant was called, but no answer
was received. The Caller then proceeded down the list until she found an employee to
cover the available assignment. That employee was junior to the Claimant. The
Claimant contends that she was at home, her phone was in working order, and she did
not receive a call. A claim was immediately filed. It was denied by the Carrier and
resulted in this case before the Board.
The Organization contends that the Carrier did not verify the no answer notation
in the call record with a Management person, the telephone company, or with an
Agreement employee. It argues that the Carrier is obligated to do this in accordance
with Article 3 (C) quoted below:
"(C) Management will verify all failures to answer a work assignment
telephone call with a `Verified Don't Answer' from the telephone
company, or, if possible, have another employee, preferably an
agreement employee, verify that the call was made."
The Carrier did not explain away its failure to follow the terms of Article 3 (C)
in this instance.
Based on the complete record of this case, the Board is compelled to sustain the
instant claim for eight hours at the straight time rate.
AWARD
Claim sustained in accordance with the Findings.
Form I Award No. 35943
Page 3 Docket No. CL-36412
02-3-00-3-635
ORDER
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that
an award favorable to the Claimant(s) be made. The Carrier is ordered to make the
Award effective on or before 30 days following the postmark date the Award is
transmitted to the parties.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 20th day of February, 2002.