"Claim on behalf of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the Union Pacific Railroad:

Claim on behalf of Signal Maintainer R. K. Ward, for all lost overtime on February 5, 2003, account Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement, particularly Rules 1, 16 and 80, when on February 5, 2003, Carrier called a Signal Maintenance Foreman to assist a Signal Maintainer in performing work involving overtime, instead of calling and using the Claimant who was ready, willing and able to perform the work, and who was also first alternate on the call list if the incumbent is unavailable. Carrier's File No. 1359743. General Chairman's File No. W-16-293. BRS File Case No. 12844-UP."

This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

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

The question to be decided in this case is whether the Carrier violated the Rules Agreement - specifically Rules 1 - SENIORITY CLASS ONE, 16 - SUBJECT TO CALL and 80 - LOSS OF EARNINGS - when on February 5, 2003, a Signal Maintainer Foreman was used to oversee the work and actions of a Signal Maintainer.

The Organization's penalty claim presented on behalf of the Claimant contends that he was ready, willing, and able to work with the other Signal Maintainer and, without delineating specifics, stated that the Signal Foreman did more than oversee the work of the Signal Maintainer. The penalty claim initially asked for reimbursement to the Claimant "for all lost time on February 5, 2003." The subject of the claim as presented to the Board asks "for all lost overtime on February 5, 2003."

The clear and unrebutted facts of this case show that the Signal Foreman, during his regular tour of duty on the date in question, did nothing more than function as a Foreman. The Signal Maintainer who was allegedly assisted by the . Foreman performed service only during his regularly assigned tour of duty. The

There is no evidence whatsoever to prove or otherwise indicate that any of the people involved in this case performed any overtime service on February 5, 2003.

There is no evidence or proof to show that anyone involved in this case was "called" under the provisions of Rule 16.

There is no evidence or proof that any of the work performed by the Signal Foreman would have or should have accrued to the Claimant.

There is no evidence or proof that the Claimant suffered any loss of earnings as that term is used in Rule 80.

In short, there is no evidence or proof that any violation occurred on the date in question as alleged by the Organization. In the absence of evidence or proof of a violation of the Rules Agreement, the claim must be and is denied.

AWARD