"CORRECTED"
Form 1
T
Award No. 37636
t No. SG-38094
05-3-03-3-546
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee
. O'Brien when award was rendered.
DISPUTE:
.
5TATEMENT OF
CLAIM:
t ii ilroad Signalmen
(Union i i
"Claim on behalf of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of
Railroad Signalmen on the Union Paciflc Railroad,:
Claim on behalf of M. J. Hymel, for 12 hours at the overtime rate of
pay, account Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement,
particularly 1 ,
2002, Carrier allowed a junior signal maintainer. to work between
CPH 381 and CHP 378, on the Beaumont Sub in Houston, Texas,
following a tie gang instead of calling and using the Claimant who
was senior and available to perform the work. Carrier9s actions
deprived t1t ft ti r.
Carrier's File No. 1343906. General Chairman's File NO. S-16-345.
EINDINGS:
it
Division °
9
upon the whole record and an the
° ,finds t
.
.
The carrier carriers involved in
°v r ° i
as approved June 21, 1934.
Form
a
r . 37636,
Docket .
_0.®6
This Division f the Adjustment r has jurisdiction yr the dispute*
invlveer in.
Parties said dispute ere given a notice hearing thereon.
. n Saturday, September 1, 002, Trac Tie n s working on the
eau nt Subdivision in Houston, Texas. hen Track Tie an is working, the
Carrier requires signal employee to be available terforny work required ®n
its signal system. n September 2002, Signal Maintainer . . ine worked
1us of ovti a following the Track Tie n the eau nSubdivision.
n October , 2002, Organization file claim on behalf of M. J. Hymel
for 1 hours' y at the of a to for Sunday, September , 2002. There is no
question that the Claimant is senior
tSignal
intai
er
in. The
Organization contends that the Claimant should have been offered the ovime
followin the Trac Tie n because he was senior to Signal Maintainer Swinhoe
s offered t overtime.
e Carrier denied t clai contending that M. J. Hymel was not available,
for r overtime working with the Track Tie Gang on the Beaumont Subdivision on
t1, 2002, , because he worked
ten hours of
overtime on September 21
working on Signal Gang No. 2658.
T Organization submitted undated, internal Brotherhood Railroad
Signalmen letter, cpurportedly demonstrates tat its Local air
local management at Houston bilaterally agreed list. Carrier
denie tat any such call list had bee established at Houston.,
If the Organization's Local Chairman and Union Pacific local management at
Houston did agree to establish a call list, they evidently did not memorialize this
understanding i ruin ng because there is no signed document in the record before
the Board reflecting s understanding. n i n even the purported
agreement submitted Organization specifically refers to verb i
ousto Terminal nal Yard.
The overtime in dispute was performed on the Beaumont,
Subdivision, not in the Houston Terminal Yard. Therefore, that reputed
understanding l i itt is overtime. v, even if t 1
Form 1
V
r
et No. SG-38094
®®-.
understanding i apply t this s overtime, there was no. violation because. the'.
Claimant was not available for this overtime.. t is undisputed t h ore t
hours of overtim me on Saturday, September 21, 2002, working with Signal Gang No,.-.
. For all these reasons, claim is denied.
AWARD
Claim denied. -
E
This consideration f is identified tat r favorable to hla i ns) note
TI
Third i ird Division
t
Chicago, Il:
is,this 1 o October
2005.