The instant claim arose when a Signal Electronics Technician, junior to the Claimant in terms of signal seniority, was used to perform fire control duties at the straight time rate and was then retained in continuous duty at the overtime rate to perform the same fire control duty. The claim does not seek payment for any of the straight time fire control work, but only the portion of the Signal Electronics Technician's time that was paid at the overtime rate. Distilled to its essence, the claim says that there was no problem using the Signal Electronics Technician for tire control at the straight time rate, but rather than continue him in the same service at the overtime rate the Carrier was required to call the Claimant to perform the work instead.
Given the foregoing circumstances, it was incumbent upon the Organization to establish by Rule language applicable to the work involved that the Signal Electronics Technician could not be retained in continuous service to perform the work when the overtime rate was triggered. None of the Rules cited by the Organization provide any explicit language that required the Claimant to be called for the overtime in question to displace the Signal Electronics Technician.
Because the Organization failed to cite an explicit Rule that required interrupting the continuous service of the Signal Electronics Technician under the circumstances in question, there is no proper basis for concluding, on this record, that any of the work assignment Rules cited by the Organization were violated. The claim, therefore, must be denied.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an Award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.