For 1 TI L ADJUSTMENT




                                          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.