Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Award No. 37862
Docket No. SG-37732
06-3-03-3-073
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee
Robert Richter when award was rendered.
(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Union Pacific Railroad
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
:
"l. Claim on behalf of the General Committee of the Brotherhood
of Railroad Signalmen on the Union Pacific (UP).
2. Claim on behalf of N. J. Scarsone, for three hours at his time and
one-half rate of pay, account Carrier violated the current
Signalmen's agreement, particularly Rules 1, 16 and 80, when it
used another employee instead of the Claimant for overtime
service on November 27, 2001, at Krotz Spring, Louisiana, and
deprived the Claimant of the opportunity to perform this work.
Carrier's File No. 1301521. General Chairman's File No. S-16,
80-216. BRS File Case No. 12501-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
herein.
Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.
T.. t
r
ur ~i~ Award No. 37$62
Page 2 Docket No. SG-37732
06-3-03-3-073
On November 27, 2001 there was a black light at the approach signal to the
bridge at MP 613.0 in Krotz Spring, Louisiana. The regularly assigned Signal
Maintainer was called out to make repairs. The Signal Maintainer called his Foreman
and requested help with a block of batteries. The Foreman was with the Manaeer
Signal Maintenance and they dispatched the on-duty Interlocking Repairman to haul
the batteries to the trouble site. At no time was any individual called in for overtime to
assist the regular Signal Maintainer.
The Organization submitted the claim at issue on January 10, 2002. The claim
contended that the Carrier violated Rules 1, 16 and 80 of the Agreement by failing to
call the Claimant, the adjoining Signal Maintainer, rather than utilizing the on-duty
Tnforlnn46nrt Rnnairm~n
The Organization is arguing that the Claimant should have been called to help
the Signal Maintainer. However, it failed to cite a Rule that prohibited the Interlocking
T_ _.L.. .7,_e_. f______ l.·
nepair~iian, who was on
uuty
11"111
assisting the Signal iviaintamer.
The Overtime Rules were not violated because the Interlocking Repairman was
not called for overtime. The Organization failed to prove how the Carrier violated the
Agreement.
AWARD
Claim denied.
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
Rar (lrrlnr of `Thirai T\;..;~;nn
~J vaaea,a va auaau asa.aoavai
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this Ist day of August 2006.