Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Award No. 37910
Docket No. SG-38265
06-3-04-3-178
The Third Division ieonsisted of the regular members and in addition Referee
James E. Mason when award was rendered.
(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(CSX Transportation, Inc. (former Baltimore
( and Ohio Railroad)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
"Claim on behalf of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of
Railroad Signalmen on the CSX Transportation, Inc. (formerly
Baltimore & Ohio):
Claim on behalf of V. K. Kennedy, for 24 hours at the time and one-half
rate of pay, account Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement,
particularly Rule 14(g) and Rule 29, when on August 6, 2002, through
August 9, 2002, a junior employee was asked to perform overtime work
during these evenings instead of asking the Claimant who is an
Independent Signal 1Nlaintainer and is the next senior employee on the call
list and was available and should have been afforded the overtime work
opportunity. Independent Maintainers have always been called before the
Leading Signal Maintainers. Carrier's File No. 15(02-0179). General
Chairman's File No. BWE-02-12-02. BRS File Case No. 12951-B&O."
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.
Form 1 Award No. 37910
Page 2 Docket No. SG-38265
06-3-04-3-178
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved
herein.
Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.
This dispute alleges a violation of Rules 14(g) and 29 of the Signalmen's
Agreement. RULE 14 - OVERTIME AND CALLS reads, in pertinent part, as follows:
"(g) When overtime service is required of a part of a gang or group of
employees, the senior employees of the class involved, who are
available, shall have precedence of such overtime if they so desire."
RULE 29 - SENIORITY reads, in pertinent part, as follows:
"(a) Seniority shall consist of rights based on relative length of service
of employees as hereinafter provided.
(b) There shall be five (5) seniority classes as follows:
(1) Signal Foreman.
(2) Leading Signalman and Leading Signal Maintainer.
(3) Signalman, Signal Maintainer and Signal Inspector.
(4) Assistant Signalman and Assistant Signal Maintainer.
(5) Signal Helper."
The Claimant was an Independent Signal Maintainer with an assigned territory
and tour of duty from 7:00 A.M. to 3:30 P.M. with Saturday and Sunday rest days. On
the claim dates he performed service on his regular assignment including overtime
hours on each of two of the claim dates. On those same claim dates, the Carrier
assigned a Lead Signal Maintainer to work with and supervise a newly assigned Signal
Maintainer who had not yet become fully qualified on his assigned territory. In the
course of supervising the qualifying Signal Maintainer, the Lead Signal Maintainer
accrued overtime hours on each of the four dates in question. The claim alleges that the
Claimant should have been called from the "call-out" list to perform the overtime
hours accrued by the Lead Signal Maintainer in his capacity as an overseer of the
qualifying Signal Maintainer.
Form 1 Award No. 37910
Page 3 Docket No. SG-38265
06-3-04-3-178
From our review of the fact situation and after considering the arguments
advanced by the parties, it is concluded that the Rules relied upon by the Organization
lend no support to its position.
Rule 14(g) specifically relates to overtime service required of a part of a gang, or
group of employees. This case involves an Independent Signal Maintainer and a Lead
Signal Maintainer who was functioning as an instructor and overseer to a Signal
Maintainer. Rule 14(g) has no application to that type of situation.
Rule 29 lists the seniority classes of Signal Department employees. Everyone
involved in this dispute was assigned within the seniority classes that are listed in Rule
29. No one outside of the listed seniority classes was involved.
The Organization failed to carry the burden of proof which is its to carry in
disputes of this nature. The Lead Signal Maintainer supervised the Signal Maintainer.
There is nothing more then surmise and conjecture to suggest that the Lead Signal
Maintainer performed anything other than the work he was assigned to do. Therefore,
this claim must be denied for lack of proof.
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.