This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
This dispute involves an alleged violation of Rule 14(g) which reads as follows:
The Organization's initial claim alleged that on January 2 and 3, 2003, ". . . the Carrier brought these two men (Wood and Smith) to Woodstock, MD, to assist . . . in repairing pole line damage . . . ." The Organization contended that these two men ". . . do not hold any rights on the Baltimore West End Seniority District."
The case records show that Signalman Wood worked eight hours at straight time plus six hours at overtime on January 2. On January 3, 2003, he worked eight hours at straight time and one and one-half hours at overtime.
The records show that Signalman Smith did not work on January 2, but rather was observing a Safety Bonus Time day off duty. On January 3, 2003, he worked eight hours at straight time plus one and one-half hours at the overtime rate.
Therefore, contrary to the Organization's claim, it is apparent that the Carrier did not bring these two men to Woodstock, Maryland, on January 2, 2003.
On January 2, 2003, Signalman Wood drove a Line Truck from Hancock, West Virginia, to Woodstock, Maryland, to be used in repairing a damaged pole Form 1 Award No. 37909
line. Upon arrival at the worksite, it was determined that the truck could not be used to assist with the necessary repairs. Signalman Wood remained at Woodstock and worked with the other members of the Signal Gang that was making the pole line repairs.
On January 3, 200.3, Signalmen Wood and Smith worked with the Signal Gang that was making the pole line repairs after which they returned with the Line Truck to Hancock, West Virginia.
The records show that Claimant Kennedy worked three hours overtime on his regular assignment on January 3, 2003.
The Carrier argued that since 1994 there has been a single Collective Bargaining Agreement and system seniority for all Signal Department employees on the Carrier's property. 'Therefore, it contends that the two "other" employees mentioned in this claim had a right to be used as they were on the claim dates. Signalmen Wood and Smith were de facto members of the Signal Gang that was repairing the pole line and, as such, had a right to the continuous overtime work of that gang as opposed to the Claimants, both of whom were regularly assigned to individual maintenance sections.
The Rule relied upon by the Organization has previously been examined by the Board. In Third Division Award 36802 the Board held:
From our examination of the case record, it is the Board's conclusion that all employees involved in this dispute hold system-wide seniority. The individuals who were working together as a gang making repairs to the damaged pole line were entitled to the overtime worked by the gang. The Claimants were not part of the gang working on the damaged pole line and had no demand right to the overtime worked by the gang. Claimant Kennedy was not available to perform the overtime work claimed by him on January 3, 2003. The time consumed driving the Line Truck from and to Hancock, West Virginia, did not create a penalty claim situation for either of the Claimants. From the entirety of this case record, there is no proof to support a contention of violation of Rule 14(g). Therefore, the claim is denied.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an Award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.