For 1 TI L ADJUSTMENT
BOARD
T DIVISION
r .22
Docket . S 3774
04-3-0 -3-0
The Third Division consiste of the regular members an in addition Referee
ancy . Eiscen
when
award s rendered.
(Brotherhood of Railroad Sinlmen
TIES T DISPUTE:
(CSX Transportation; Inc. (former Baltimore and Ohio
Railroad Company)
.STATEMENT F CLAIM:
"Claim on behalf of the General Committee f the Brotherhood o
ailroad Sinalmen on the CSX Transportation, Inc. (CST):
Clai on behalf o. L. Watkins, for four hours an 0 mutes t
his time and one-half rate of pay, account Carrier violate the
current Signalmen's Agreement, particularly l1, hen it calle
another employee instead of the Claimant for a trouble
call
on the
Claimant's assigned territory on February 2, 2 02, n deprive
the Claimant of the opportunity to perform this work. Carrier's
File . 15(02- 063). General Chairman's File o. E- - -.
S File Case .12- "
FINDINGS:
The Third f t Adjustment Board, n the hole record all t
· enc, s tat:
The carrier r carriers and the employee or employees involve 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 o. 37242
Page 2 Docket o. SO-37746
04-3-0- -90
Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.
The Claimant in this case is P. L. Watkins, who, at the time this dispute arose
was assigned
to
the position of Signal Maintainer on the Baltimore West End
Seniority District. n Friday, February 22, 2002, a malfunction developed at the
highway grade crossing protection system at the Millville Road crossing located at
mile post 4.0 on the Shenandoah Subdivision. Thereafter, the Jacksonville Signal
Control Center began to contact employees for overtime service to make the
necessary repairs. The Carrier attempted to contact senior employee Watkins t his
home
at
approximately 10:00 P.M., however, the Claimant did
not
answer, the call,
and a message was left
on
his answering machine. The
Signal
Control
Center
proceeded calling down the seniority list until, at approximately'' 10:30 P.., junior
employee . Graves was contacted and responded to the overtime service call.
Graves made the necessary repairs and was paid four and one-half hours overtime
pay
for his services.
n February 26, 2002, the Local Chairman submitted a claim
on
behalf of
the Claimant
in
which he alleged that:
r. Watkins called the Signal Control Center immediately after
receiving this message and was also paged by the Control Center at
this tine. When r. Watkins reached the Signal Control Center, he
was told 3 different Signal Technicians that there was no trouble
on his assigned territory, and that he
as
not called. Shortly after
arriving for duty on nay, February 25, 2002, r. Watkins
learned that there was indeed trouble call
on
his assigne territo
and several maintainers ere called and maintainer . . Graves
accepted this call t 22:30 and was dispatched."
The Organization requested that the Claimant be paid for the overtime that
Graves worked on February 22 account
6`
r. Watkins bein the regular maintainer
and having been available to perfor the k on his assigne territo should eve
been afforded the opportuni hake this trouble
Fr 1 r .3722
Docket . S -3774
The Carrier denied the Organization's clai notin that there s n
violation of the Agreement because n tte t s de tontact the Claimant'.
and his failure to respon to same rendered i "unavailable for service." The
General Chairman responded to the denial y admitting that the Claimant had
issed" the February , 2002 call fro the Signal Control enter, but that a had
"ina
editel"
returned the call.
The claim s subsequently discussed during a June 1, 2002 conference t
which te Carrier maintained tat there as "no evience whatsoever" to suggest
that the Claimant did, in fact, return the call fro the Signal Control Center. The
Carrier further maintained tat the Claimant's story as "not credible" given the
fact that the ignl Control Center continued contactin other employees
for
overtime service until junior employee. raves accepted the call at 1 :. .
Although the Organization admitted there s no evidence support the
Claimant's story, the General Chairman remained steadfast in his assertion that
alou the Claimant had " issed" t Signal Control Center call, a a
responded immediately after receivi se, l the informed that there was
16no
trouble" n is assigned territory.
This claim asserts tat although the Claimant as t t home when calle
r
t e overtime service February 2, a "immediately" returne a call
for r. For its art, the Carrier maintains tat ere is vi tat the
Claimant "immediately" returned a Signal Control Center's call work,
account t Carrier continue call other employees over the next 30 minutes until
ieace junior employee raves at 10:30 P.M., and he accepted the call. At issue
is is critical fact is remained unresolved, n the property. It is t
Organization's burden t rove, it preponderance record evi a ce, that the
facts, s resented, are accurate an tat violation f Agreement cr.
Under these stances, the e Organization was unable to shoulder that burden.
e Board s consistently found that its beyond its province resolv
evidentiary conflicts f material fact. This record is vi t necessary evidence that would support the Organization's allegations or resolve. the conflict in
acts. Lacking
s
evidence, t cannot resolve conflicts, and therefore,
the claim must i
Form 1
Page
a .372
Docket . 3774
-3-- -
AWARD
Claim
denied.
E
This Board, after consideration of te dispute idetie above, hereby orders
that an r favorable to the
Claim
ants) not be made.
-NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
y Order of Third Division
ated at Chicago, Illinois, this 7th day of October 2004.