Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Award No. 36595
Docket No. SG-35764
03-3-99-3-744

The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Robert M. O'Brien when award was rendered.

(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE:


STATEMENT OF CLAIM:



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.

This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.


Form 1 Award No. 36595
Page 2 Docket No. SG-35764


The salient facts giving rise to this claim are not in dispute. In 1998, the Claimant was a Signal Inspector headquartered at North Platte, Nebraska. His assigned hours were 7:30 A.M. - 4:30 P.M. Monday through Saturday with Sunday his rest day. Part of the Claimant's work district was from MP300 to MP365 on the Sidney Subdivision.


On Sunday, May 31, 1998, two signal employees junior to the Claimant were called to assist on a steel gang project at MP312 on the Sidney Subdivision. They worked on this project from 3:00 P.M. to 8:30 P.M., five and one-half hours.


On July il, 1998, the Organization filed a claim in which it contended that the Carrier violated Rule 10 of the Agreement when it assigned two employees junior to the Claimant within the boundary of his work district. It is the Organization's position that the Claimant should have been called to perform this work on overtime. It requested that he be compensated five and one-half hours at the overtime rate for the work opportunity he lost on Sunday, May 31, 1998.


The Carrier denied the claim contending that Rule 10 was inapplicable to the work performed on May 31, 1998, on the Sidney Subdivision inasmuch as the signal gang employees who were assigned to assist on the steel gang project were not members of the Claimant's gang. Moreover, according to the Carrier, the employees who assisted with this project were required to have a Commercial Driver's License (CDL) because a boom truck was needed and the Claimant does not possess a CDL.





It is undisputed that the two employees of the signal gang who were assigned to assist on a steel gang project on May 31, 1998, were not part of the Claimant's gang. Accordingly, a portion of the Claimant's gang was not required for overtime service on May 31, 1998, his rest day. Therefore, Rule 10(d) was inapposite to the Claimant and he did not have a preference to this work.


Inasmuch as the Claimant did not have a preference to the work assigned to junior signal gang employees on his work district it was the Carrier's prerogative to use

Form 1 Award No. 36595
Page 3 Docket No. SG-35764
03-3-99-3-744

the junior employees because they possessed a CDL unlike the Claimant who did not have CDL. The claim is denied as a result.



      Claim denied.


                          ORDER


This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an Award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.

                      NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                      By Order of Third Division


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 16th day of June 2003.