Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Award No. 36856
Docket No. SG-36314
04-3-00-3-503
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee
Marty E. Zusman when award was rendered.
(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Union Pacific Railroad Company (former Chicago &
( Northwestern Transportation Company)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
"Claim on behalf of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of
Railroad Signalmen on the Union Pacific Railroad (former C&NW):
Claim on behalf of D. J. Zimmerman for payment of Nine hours and
Forty-five minutes at the time and one-half rate, account Carrier
violated the current Signalmen's Agreement, particularly Rules 15
and 16, when on April 3, 1999 Carrier failed to call the Claimant to
perform overtime service on several signal trouble cases in and
around Tama, Iowa. Carrier allowed a junior employee to perform
this service and deprived the Claimant of the opportunity to
perform this work. Carrier's File No. 1197189. General
Chairman's File No. 9c159659.1. BRS File Case No. 11306-C&NW."
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. 36856
Page 2 Docket No. SG-36314
04-3-00-3-503
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute
involved herein.
Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.
On May 19, 1999, the Local Chairman alleged violation of Rule 15(d) and
Rule 16(a) when the Carrier failed to call the Claimant in seniority order. The
Organization argues that the Claimant was first in seniority order in the three-man
gang, followed by D. Beck, second, and K. Hopwood, third. The Organization
maintains that on April 3, 1999, the Signal Operations Center called Signal
Maintainer Beck for overtime instead of the Claimant who was the senior employee
available for work.
Our review of this case centers on one unrebutted assertion made by the
Carrier and documented with the log for the date of the alleged violation. It
supports the Carrier's statement that the Claimant "was not on duty and was
checked out during the trouble call." Rule 14 (d) states:
"When overtime service is required of a part of a group of
employees who work together, the senior qualified available
employee of the class involved shall have preference to such
overtime if they so desire." (Emphasis added)
The Carrier maintains that the Claimant was "checked out and shown
unavailable until April 5, 1999 . . . ." He was therefore not an "available" employee
subject to call. Absent any rebuttal by the Organization, this stands as fact. The
claim must be denied.
AWARD
Claim denied.
Form 1 Award No. 36856
Page 3 Docket No. SG-36314
04-3-00-3-503
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 28th day of January 2004.