Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Award No. 37156
Docket No. SG-37873
04-3-03-3-258
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee
Robert Perkovich when award was rendered.
(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(CSX Transportation, Inc. (former Seaboard
( Coast Line Railroad)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
"Claim on behalf of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of
Railroad Signalmen on the CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT):
Claim on behalf of F. Corbett, for all time (straight time and
overtime, if any) that he would have earned on the assignment, bad
be been allowed to report to the new assignment, in addition to
compensation he actually earned for the period of time be was
denied the new assignment, plus any expenses; Carrier should pay
10 hours at the Signal Technician straight time rate of pay for
March 25, 26, 27 and 28, 2002; April 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 22,
2002, for a total of 130 straight time hours; account Carrier violated
the current Signalmen's Agreement, particularly Rule 44, when it
held the Claimant on his former position more than thirty (30) days
after he was the successful applicant and awarded a Signal
Technician position 7FG8 at Hamlet, NC, advertised on Bulletin
SCSY-0047. Carrier's File No. 02-0128. General Chairman's File
No. SCL-08-24-02A. BRS File Case No. 12679-SCL."
FINDINGS:
The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the
evidence, finds that:
Form 1 Award No. 37156
Page 2 Docket No. SG-37873
04-3-03-3-258
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.
Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.
The Claimant was assigned to the position of Signal Maintainer at Camden,
South Carolina, when he was assigned the position of Signal Technician at the
Hamlet Hump Yard in Hamlet, North Carolina, on March 20, 2002 pursuant to
bulletin. However, he was not placed into the position until April 23, 2002, 31 days
thereafter.
The record reflects that the Claimant was required to work his old
assignment until the close of business on April 22, 2002, the 31st day after 6e was
reassigned and that he offered his services to respond to trouble calls over the
weekend on his old assignment. Moreover, the record reflects that he received
compensation at the Signal Technician rate for that day and overtime pay at the
rate of his Signal Maintainer position as well.
In our view the facts set forth above do not establish a contract violation by
the Carrier. First, it is clear that the Claimant volunteered for the overtime in
question because the work that required the overtime had not yet been completed.
Moreover, because he was paid for the difference in pay between the two positions
for the time in question, the claim is moot.
AWARD
Claim denied.
Form 1 Award No. 37156
Page 3 Docket No. SG-37873
04-3-03-3-258
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 25th day of August 2004.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
LABOR MEMBER'S DISSENT
Award No. 37156 - Docket No. SG - 37873
Referee R. Perkovich
The Claimant was assigned to the position of Signal Maintainer at
Camden, SC, when he bid on and was subsequently awarded, on
March 20, 2002, a Signal Technician's position at the Carrier's
Hump Yard in Hamlet, North Carolina. However, he was not
allowed to report to the position until April
23, 2002, 31
days
thereafter.
The record clearly reflects that the Claimant was required to work
his former assignment until the close of business April
22, 2002.
The
record includes signed affidavits to support that position. The
Claimant was not allowed to report to the new position until the
31St
day after the close of the bulletin, thereby instantly triggering the
penalty provisions of the rule. Rule 44(b) provides: "Transfer of
successful applicants to new assignments shall be made
within
thirty
days after close of bulletin advertising the position. If the successful
applicants are not so transferred
within
the above specified period
they shall be allowed
compensation equal to what they would have
earned on the new assignment
in addition to
compensation actually
earned for the period of time denied the position,
plus necessary
expenses." (emphasis added) The Claimant volunteered for the
overtime, however, this was only after he was held on his old
position. The penalty provision requires payment "in addition to"
his earnings on the former assignment and "compensation equal to
what [he] would have earned on the new assignment," the claimed
120 hours at the applicable rate is payable as a consequence of the
self-executing rule. The facts set forth above, and the record clearly
proves, that the Organization established a prima-facia contract
violation by the Carrier. The rule provides that a penalty be paid as
a consequence of making the assignment outside of (instead of
within) the
30
day requirement. Based on the above, the Award is
erroneous and should not be considered as precedent.
QA
. mv
a2i
C. A. McGraw - abor Member