"Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

(1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it called and assigned junior employe R Dickens to perform overtime service (air brake switch renewal work) on August 25 and 26, 2001, instead of Mr. M. Reilly (System File NEC-BMWE-SD4141 AMT).

(2) As a consequence of the violation referred to in Part (1) above, Claimant M. Reilly shall now be compensated for twenty-eight (28) hours' pay at his respective time and one-half rate of pay."

Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.

This claim protests the assignment of a junior Maintenance Gang Substation Electrician to perform weekend overtime work on a construction project rather than the Claimant, a member of Construction Gang D-251. It involves the same Claimant, same project, same junior maintenance employee, but a different weekend, as that before the Board in Third Division Award 37655. As in the other case, the issue presented is the application of Rule 55(a) - Preference for Overtime Work.

The arguments made by both the Organization and the Carrier mirror those presented in Award 37655. Due to the fact that this record also establishes that the maintenance gang to which Dickens was assigned performed work on the brake switch renewal project during their regular tour of duty the prior week, and the Claimant and his construction gang were working on an entirely different project, facts not disputed by the Organization and not protested by this claim, the Board adopts the rationale set forth in Award 37655 that the disputed overtime assignment was a continuation of work ordinarily and customarily performed by the maintenance gang on that project, and finds that the Carrier's assignment of overtime to Dickens on August 25 and 26, 2001 was not a violation of the Claimant's seniority rights to overtime under Rule 55(a).

AWARD