Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Award No. 38003
Docket No. SG-37781
06-3-03-3-137
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee
Elizabeth C. Wesman 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 (UP):
Claim on behalf of W. J. Brown, for 12 hours and 30 minutes at his
time and one-half rate of pay, account Carrier violated the current
Signalmen's Agreement, particularly Rule 16, when it called another
employee instead of the Claimant for overtime service between M.P:
42.0 and M.P: 52.0 on the Livonia Sub., on February 18, 2002, and
deprived the Claimant of this work opportunity. Carrier's File No.
1311484. General Chairman's File No. S-16-259. BRS File Case No.
12479-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.
Form 1 Award No. 38003
Page 2 Docket No. SG-37781
06-3-03-3-137
The incident precipitating this claim arose on February 18, 2002, when the
Carrier called Signal Maintainer N. Scarsone out for overtime work from 7:30 A.M.
until 8:00 P.M. The Organization filed a claim on behalf of Signal Maintainer W. J.
Brown on March 18, 2002. In its claim the Organization asserted that Brown, as the
first person on the call list, should have been called for the overtime in lieu of
Scarsone. In support of its position, the Organization cited Rule 16, Note 2, which
states:
"The Local Chairman and Local Management may agree to
establish lists or other means in which to determine which employees
are to be called under this rule, subject to review by the General
Chairman and Labor Relations."
The Carrier denied the claim on May 13 and it was appealed on May 21,
2002. By letter of June 27, 2002, the Carrier denied the appeal. In that denial, the
Carrier pointed out that the cited Rule deals with the selection of employees during
an emergency. The Carrier pointed out that because the work at issue was
anticipated and scheduled, it was not emergency work under the meaning of Rule 16
and its attached Notes.
Based on our review of the evidence in this case, we conclude that there is
nothing refuting the Carrier's contention that the work at issue was not emergency
work, but rather had been anticipated and scheduled. Based upon that fact alone,
Rule 16 does not apply. Accordingly, the claim must be denied.
AWARD
Claim denied.
ORDER
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
By Order of Third Division
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 25th day of October 2006.