Form 1 NATIONAL. RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Award No. 37906
Docket No. SG-38212
116-3-04-3-124
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:
(Union Pacific Railroad Company
STATEMENT OF
CLAIM:
"Claim on behalf of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of
Railroad Signalmen on the Union Pacific Railroad:
Claim on behalf of R. J. Bartholomew, for $98.22, a 3 hour call,
account Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement,
particularly Rule 16, when on December 31, 2002, Carrier called the
wrong employee for signal trouble (broken gate) instead of calling the
Claimant, who was the assigned signal maintainer and was available to
take the call. As a result of Carrier's violation the Claimant was
dented the opportunity to perform this work. Carrier's File No.
1358167. General Chairman's File No. W-16-257. BRS File Case No.
12915-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.
Form 1 Award No. 37906
Page 2 Docket No. SG-38212
06-3-04-3-124
Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.
This case concerns itself with a situation in which the Carrier had information
relative to a signal malfunction involving a broken crossing gate. This malfunction
required expedited attention to correct. The Claimant was in line for a can to perform
service of this type. However, the Claimant could not be contacted in the usual and
customary manner so another Signal Maintainer was dispatched to correct the
malfunction.
The Organization initiated the penalty claim on behalf of the Claimant alleging
two violations of Rule 16 - SUBJECT TO CALL. Its first allegation was that the
Claimant was available for a call and had not been contacted at his regular calling
point. The Organization's second contention was that the Claimant was entitled to a
two-hour wait period before another Signal Maintainer could be called.
Rule 16 - SUBJECT TO CALL reads, in pertinent part, as follows:
"RULE 16 - SUBJECT TO CALL
A. Employees assigned to regular maintenance duties recognize the
possibility of emergencies in the operation of the railroad, and will
notify the person designated by the management of their regular point
of call. When such employees desire to leave such point of call for a
period of time in excess of two (2) hours, they will notify the person
designated by management that they will be absent, about when they
will return, and when possible, where they may be found. Unless
registered absent, the regular assignees will be called except when
unavailable due to rest requirements under the Hours of Service Act,
as amended by Public Law 94-348."
During the on-property handling of this case, the Carrier pointed out that
attempts were, in fact, made to contact the Claimant at his tie up point, his cell phone
number and on his pager. No less than three such attempts were made by the Carrier
over a period of time extending from 2:14 P.M. to 3:33 P.M. Only after these three
attempts to contact the Claimant failed did the Carrier dispatch the other Signal
Maintainer.
Form 1 Award No. 37906
Page 3 Docket No. SG-38212
06-3-04-3-124
The Carrier additionally argued that there is no provision in Rule 16 or
otherwise which requires that it must wait for two hours before contacting another
employee. To require the Carrier to so wait would effectively paralyze the Carrier's
operations and inhibit the prompt attention to signal problems.
The Board concurs with the Carrier's position in this case.
The evidence of record clearly shows that attempts to contact the Claimant were
made at 2:14 P.M., 3:07 P.M., and 3:33 P.M. all without success. The Board is
impressed with the candid acknowledgment by the Organization that:
"Mr. Bartholomew is available 90% of the time and takes calls."
The instant case obviously falls within the ten percent of the time when the
Claimant is not available to receive calls.
As for the argument relative to a two-hour wait before calling another employee,
the Carrier's position is correct. Rule 16A does nothing more than allow an employee
to be unavailable for a call for a two-hour period when he notifies Management
in
advance of his unavailability. The Rule does not require the Carrier to be paralyzed
for a two-hour period before it can react to a signal malfunction.
This claim must be and is denied.
AWARD
Claim denied.
ORDER
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that
an Award favorable to the Cllaimant(s) not be made.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 22nd day of August 2006.