Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Award No. 37550
Docket No. SG-38010
05-3-03-3-442
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
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
:
"Claim on behalf of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of
Railroad Signalmen on the Union Pacific:
Claim on behalf of R. G. Monroe, for 16 hours at his respective
overtime rate of pay (8 hours for each day), account Carrier violated
the current Signalmen's Agreement, particularly Rules 1 and 16, when
on July 29 & 30, 2002, Carrier allowed a Relief Maintainer to perform
work in the Livonia Yard instead of calling the Claimant who is
assigned to work in the yard as an Interlocking Repairman, to perform
the work. Carrier's actions deprived the Claimant of the opportunity to
perform this work. Carrier's File No. 1338775. General Chairman's
File No. S-1, 16-336. BRS File Case No. 12764-UP."
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.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved
Form I Award
No. 37550
Page 2 Docket No. SG-38010
05-3-03-3-442
Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.
The Claimant in this case was regularly assigned to a position identified as
Interlocking Repairman at Livonia Yard. On the claim dates, the Claimant was off
duty observing his assigned rest days. Penalty claims were presented on his behalf by
the Organization alleging that on each of the dates mentioned in the claim the Carrier
used a Relief Maintainer to perform some unspecified work that should have been
performed on an overtime basis by the Claimant. The Organization cited Rules I and
16 in support of its claim.
RULE I - SENIORITY CLASS ONE
is a tabulation of position definitions which
comprise Seniority Class One.
Paragraph "J" of this tabulation identifies the position of Interlocking
Repairman as follows:
"J. Interlocking Repairman: An employee assigned to repairing and
maintaining an interlocking plant on an assigned district. An
employee assigned to maintain two or more power operated
switches or derails will be considered as maintaining an
interlocking plant."
Paragraph "L" of the tabulation identifies the position of Relief Signal
Maintainer as follows:
"L. Relief Signal Maintainer: An employee headquartered on and
assigned to the territory of a Manager Signal Maintenance but
reporting to various Maintenance Foremen depending upon their
assignment. A Relief Signal Maintainer will be used to cover a
particular territory while a signal maintainer is on vacation, leave
of absence, or similar circumstances. When not relieving a signal
maintainer, such employee may be required to perform the duties
of a regular signal maintainer and perform work without
supervision, which may include FRA testing or normal signal
maintenance work. Relief Signal Maintainer will not be used to
eliminate any other positions."
Form 1 Award No. 37550
Page 3 Docket No. SG-38010
05-3-03-3-442
RULE 16 - SUBJECT TO CALL
, specifically paragraph "A" thereof which is
referenced by the Organization as applicable in this case reads, in pertinent part, as
follows:
"RULE 16 - SUBJECT TO CALL
A. Employees assigned to regular maintenance duties recognize the
possibility of emergencies in the operation of the railroad, and
will notify the person designated by the Management of their
regular point of call. When such employees desire to leave such
point of call for a period of time in excess of two (2) hours, they
will notify the person designated by the management that they
will be absent, about when they will return, and when possible,
where they may be found. Unless registered absent, the regular
assignee will be called, except when unavailable due to rest
requirements under the Hours of Service Act, as amended by
Public Law 34-348."
At no time during the on-property handling of this case has the Organization
identified the specific work that was allegedly performed by the Relief Maintainer and
which should have been performed only by the Claimant.
From the case record as developed during the on-property handling, it is
apparent that on each of the claim dates a regularly assigned Relief Maintainer who
was on duty and under pay in the performance of his normal regular assigned duties
was employed by the Carrier to perform normal Maintainer's work in Livonia Yard at
the straight time rate of pay.
The Scope Rule of the applicable Rules Agreement includes as NOTE 1 thereto
the following:
"NOTE 1 - It is understood that where "signalman" or "signal
maintainer" is used in this agreement it includes all employees covered
by paragraphs (h) to (p) of Rule 1."
For several reasons, the Organization's position in this case cannot be supported.
First, there is no prohibition found in the Agreement Rules cited herein to preclude the
Carrier's use of a Relief Maintainer to perform any Maintainer work. All of the work
Form 1 Award No. 37550
Page 4 Docket No. SG-38010
05-3-03-3-442
involved in this case was performed by an employee covered by the Signalman's Scope
Rule.
Secondly, there was no "possibility of emergencies in the operation of the
railroad" identified or demonstrated by the Organization which would have triggered
an application of Rule 16 on the claim dates. In fact, the Organization failed to identify
what work was in fact performed by the Relief Maintainer.
Third, the Relief Maintainer in question was used to perform only Maintainer
work during his assigned work period in his assigned work area. There was no
overtime work performed by anyone, nor was there any need to call an employee on his
rest days to perform Maintainer work on an overtime basis.
In short, the Organization failed to meet its burden of proving that a violation of
the Rules Agreement has, in fact, occurred. The claim as presented is, therefore,
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 20th day of July 2005.