"Claim on behalf of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the National Railroad Passenger Corp. (NRPC-S):

Claim on behalf of D. P. Buker, for payment of seven hours at the time and onehalf rate of pay, account Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement, particularly Appendix "F" (8), when it permitted a junior employee on the call list to perform overtime service without calling the Claimant. Carrier File No. NEC-BRS(S)-SD-813. General Chairman's File No. RM3221-120-0199. BRS File Case No. 11056-NRPC-S."

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.

This claim filed on September 24, 1998 alleges that the Carrier failed to call the appropriate Inspector for overtime work on Sunday, July 26, 1998 in violation of Appendix F. It seeks seven hours pay for the Claimant at the time and one-half rate for a missed overtime opportunity.

The pertinent sections of Appendix F, Agreement Providing a Procedure for Caning C&S Department Employees for Trouble Involving Maintainer's Work Outside Their Regular Working Hours, are set forth below.

"8. Employees will be called from the appropriate list for work in the order

in which their names appear on the list.

9. A reasonable effort will be made to comply with the procedure outlined

above but shall not be permitted to delay getting a qualified employee to

report promptly at the point necessary to cope with the situation.

10. In the application of this understanding two calls will be made to the first six (6) employees whose names appear on the calling list. A second call will not be required where such employees are identified as not at home on the first call. One call will be made to other individuals on the list."

The record reveals that the Claimant held a regular assignment as an Inspector, with Saturday and Sunday as his rest days. On the morning of Saturday, July 25,1998 the Carrier was advised that the Groton Harvard Road crossing gates and lights were malfunctioning. The Carrier assigned Maintainers to watch the crossing, and called employees on the Inspector's call list to inspect the apparatus. The first four Inspectors on the call list were called but unavailable. The Claimant was fifth on the call list. At 2:30 P.M., before the Carrier called him, the Claimant notified the Carrier that he would be unavailable for calls until the following morning. The Carrier called all remaining employees on the Inspector's call list, but none were available.

Inspector E. Scottile reported for duty at 7:00 A.M. on Sunday, July 26, 1998, as part of his regular assignment. Because the Carrier was unable to obtain an Inspector from the can list the previous day, it instructed Scottile to perform the necessary inspection, which he did during his regular eight hour shift, plus an additional two hours which were compensated at the overtime rate. The Claimant was later called to assist Scottile, and he worked between 2:30 P.M. and 7:30 P.M., receiving five hours at the overtime rate of pay.

The Organization argues that the Carrier violated Appendix F because it did not use the Inspector's call list on Sunday, July 26, 1998 for this overtime assignment. It notes that Scottile is not the Inspector on the territory in question, while the Claimant is, and that the call list states that the Inspector responsible for the section will be called first, prior to using seniority. The Organization asserts that the Carrier failed to follow the dear mandate set forth

02-3-99-3-866