This claim filed on August 8, 1998 alleges that the Carrier failed to call the Claimant, an Electronic Technician assigned to Maintenance Gang E-062, for overtime work testing RTU equipment at Grace Interlocking on June 15, 16 and 21, 1998, in preference to junior employee K. C. Hutman, an Electronic Technician assigned to Construction Gang E-092, in violation of Appendix F. It seeks thirty-two hours pay for the Claimant at the time and one-half rate for a missed overtime opportunity.
The pertinent section of Appendix F, Agreement Providing a Procedure for Calling C&S Department Employees for Trouble Involving Maintainer's Work Outside Their Regular Working Hours, and Rule 30 are set forth below.
The record reveals that Hutman was assigned to Construction Gang E-092, which was primarily responsible for completing the Grace Interlocking cut-over. His position was assigned to work Monday through Friday from 6:00 A.M. to 2:30 P.M. The Form 1 Award No. 36080
Claimant held a regular assignment as an Electronic Technician on Maintenance Gang E-062, with Saturday and Sunday as his rest days. His gang, when not performing maintenance, was assigned to supplement the construction gang forces on that project during their regularly scheduled hours. The overtime in dispute was preplanned, and performed by Hutman between 9:30 P.M. and 6:00 A.M. on Sunday, June 14 and Monday, June 15, 7:30 P.M. and 6:00 A.M. on Tuesday, June 16, 3:00 P.M. and 3:00 A.M. on Saturday, June 20 and 7:00 P.M. and 6:00 A.M. on Sunday, June 21,1998. The Claimant also worked 2.5 hours of overtime on June 15 and four hours of overtime on June 16; June 21, 1998 was one of his rest days.
The Organization argues that the Carrier violated Appendix F because the Claimant is senior to Hutman on the Electronic Technician overtime call list and is also regularly assigned to the Grace Interlocking section. It notes that, if Rule 30 is applicable as argued by the Carrier, Rule 30(c) clearly entitles the Claimant to the disputed overtime, rather than Hutman. The Organization contends that the appropriate rate for compensation for a lost overtime opportunity is the overtime rate of pay, citing Third Division Awards 27181 and 22569.
The Carrier contends that, even though the Claimant was senior to Hutman, neither Rule 30 nor Appendix F granted him preference to overtime on the Grace Interlocking cut-over because he was not assigned to the construction gang primarily responsible for performing the work on that project. It asserts that, insofar as Hutman actually performed work on the project prior to the preplanned overtime, he clearly possessed preference for the overtime under Rule 30(a). The Carrier argues that because the Claimant was not a Maintainer, the provisions of Rule 30(c) are inapplicable. It further contends that, even if the Claimant had some contractual right to the overtime, he was unavailable to work the required hours on June 15 and 16,1998 due to Hours of Service Act restrictions, and a Maintenance Gang E-062 Electronic Technician senior to the Claimant was offered, and worked, 12 hours overtime on June 21, 1998 to assist Hutman.
A careful review of the record convinces the Board that the Organization failed to establish a violation of Appendix F or Rule 30 in this case. There is no dispute that the preplanned overtime work in issue was part of the primary responsibility of Construction Gang E-092, to which Hutman belonged, and not Maintenance Gang E062, to which the Claimant belonged. Under the terms of Rule 30(a), Hutman had the right to claim a preference to the disputed overtime as he had "actually [been] Form 1 Award No. 36080
performing the work prior to the overtime." The Claimant, being a member of the maintenance gang, cannot claim a preference, based solely on seniority, to work regularly performed by a construction gang. As the Claimant was not working in the classification of a Maintainer, Rule 30(c) does not give him preference to this overtime assignment. The Organization did not dispute the Carrier's assertion that an Electronic Technician senior to the Claimant from the maintenance gang was utilized to assist Hutman on the only claim date that the Claimant may have been available to perform the overtime work in issue. Accordingly, 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.