The Organization is seeking eight hours' overtime pay in alleging the Carrier's violation of Rules 31 and 32, when the Carrier ran around the Claimant and assigned a junior employee to repair broken rails. Rule 31 (Authorized Overtime) states in part that the ". . . employees working in the seniority Class of the immediate force or gang delegated to perform the work who have made themselves available, will be notified or called on a seniority basis." Rule 32 (Calls) states that when called for overtime they, "shall be paid . . . for work performed at the rate of time and one-half . . . . " The Organization argues that the Carrier failed to follow the Agreement and that the claim is therefore valid.
The Carrier does not deny that the junior employee was called to perform overtime service. It centers its defense on the right of management to determine how work is done; the fact that the Claimant lacked a commercial driver's license (CDL); and that the junior employee who had the CDL was needed to drive the boom truck that required a CDL. It further argues that the claim is excessive.
There is no dispute in this record that the work performed and authorized for overtime was to repair broken rails at MP 30.1 and MP 47 on February 19 and 20,1998. It is undisputed that the Foreman and Assistant Foreman who worked overtime drove the truck each day of the week on this section and both had CDLs. Likewise, there is no dispute that the Claimant neither needed a CDL for his Trackman position nor possessed one. Finally, the facts of record indicate that the junior employee called ahead of the Claimant did possess a CDL.
The Board agrees that it is management's prerogative to determine how broken rails are to be repaired and who will drive the boom truck. The problem the Board finds with the instant facts lies in the affirmative defense of the Carrier. The Carrier asserted that the junior employee "was needed to drive the boom truck." The Organization disputed that assertion, in that both the Foreman and Assistant Foreman regularly drove the boom truck and could have done so. If it is the Carrier's position that the Claimant was not run around in violation of seniority protection under the Rules, due to the fact that the junior employee was actually needed to drive the boom truck, then proof must follow. While the Carrier may have the right to call the junior employee under various circumstances, it bares the burden of providing evidence sufficient to uphold its judgment and to demonstrate sufficiently that the lack of a CDL by the Claimant made him unqualified in this instance. We find no evidence whatsoever that Form 1 Award No. 36174
the junior employee was needed to drive the boom truck or that he ever drove the boom truck during the overtime repairs.
Accordingly, as the Carrier made no argument on the property as to how the claim might be excessive and provided no proof to overcome the Organization's evidence, the claim must be sustained.
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.