Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Award No. 36996
Docket No. SG-36532
04-3-01-3-26
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee
James E. Mason when award was rendered.
(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Union Pacific Railroad Company (former Chicago &
( North Western Railroad)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
"Claim on behalf of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of
Railroad Signalmen on the Union Pacific Railroad (C&NW):
Claim on behalf of D. E. Beck for payment of 30 hours at the time
and one-half rate, account Carrier violated the current Signalmen's
Agreement, particularly the Scope Rule (Rule 1) and Rules 2, 15, 16
and 21, when on November 20 and 21, 1999 Carrier allowed a junior
employee to perform overtime service. The work consisted of
following track gangs and working on a Hot Box Detector at Belle
Plaine, Iowa. The Claimant is the regular assignee on the territory
where the work was performed and Carrier's actions deprived him
of the opportunity to perform this work. Carrier's File No. 1219335.
General Chairman's File No. N15, 16-022. BRS File Case No.
11489-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
:ire respectively carrier and employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act,
:as approved June 21,1934.
Form 1 Award No. 36996
Page 2 Docket No. SG-36532
04-3-01-3-26
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 November 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21, 1999, i.e., Wednesday through Sunday,
junior Signalman R. Litz was used to perform signal work in connection with a
derailment at Belle Plaine, Iowa. The Claimant was assigned to a position of Signal
Maintainer at Tama, Iowa. His assigned rest days were Saturday and Sunday. The
Claimant is senior as a Signalman to Signalman Litz.
The issue in this case is whether the Carrier violated the provisions of the
Agreement when it used Signalman Litz to continue to work on the weekend at the
derailment site where he had been working during the week. There is no
disagreement relative to the proper use of Signalman Litz to perform service on the
17th, 18th and 19th - Wednesday, Thursday and Friday. The Claimant performed
no service at the derailment site. The point of disagreement centers on the use of the
junior employee to perform service at the time and one-half rate on Saturday and
Sunday, November 20 and 21, 1999.
The Board finds no support in the language of the cited Rules for the
Organization's position. Both employees involved in this case are qualified,
experienced Signalmen as referenced in Rule 2. Rule 15 addresses situations in
which overtime service is required of a part of a group of employees who work
together in a shop. No such situation exists in this case. Rule 16 covers situations
involving employees subject to call. No such circumstance exists in this case. Rule
21 (c) deals with relief work which is not found in this case. It appears that the
Organization was merely "shelling the woods" in the hope of hitting something of
merit.
From the Board's review of the record in this case, it is apparent that the
employee who properly worked at the derailment site during the week was the
proper employee to continue to work at the derailment site on the weekend.
Coupled with this conclusion is the fact that the Claimant performed a total of more
than 16 hours of overtime work on the claim dates on his own regular assignment.
Form 1 Award No. 36996
Page 3 Docket No. SG-36532
04-3-01-3-26
He was not and could not have been available to perform service at the derailment
site in lieu of Signalman Litz.
From the totality of the evidence that exists here, it is obvious that there was
no proven violation of any provision of the Agreement in this case. Therefore, the
claim as presented is denied.
AWARD
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 18th day of May 2004.