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:


STATEMENT OF CLAIM :



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.


Form I Award No. 37550
Page 2 Docket No. SG-38010
05-3-03-3-442



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:



Paragraph "L" of the tabulation identifies the position of Relief Signal Maintainer as follows:


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:





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:



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



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.




      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.